An EB-1A second-review checklist that does not pretend to replace counsel
An EB-1A draft is not ready for a useful second review just because every criterion has a heading. The review becomes useful when another lawyer can follow each material statement back to a source, see what remains unproved, and decide what to do next without guessing what the first drafter meant.
This is a pre-filing operating checklist, not a legal test and not a prediction of an adjudication. Counsel should confirm the current governing sources and make every legal judgment. The point is to make the existing record inspectable before time pressure turns missing evidence into a filing decision.
1. Name the claim before opening the exhibits
Start each review row with one narrow proposition. “The beneficiary led a distinguished organization” is too broad to test. “The beneficiary directed the technical architecture for the organization’s named product release between these dates” can be tested. A claim that cannot be stated precisely cannot be mapped precisely.
Keep the requested classification, the criterion under review, the draft paragraph, and the claimed fact together. This prevents a reviewer from treating a good exhibit as support for a different proposition.
2. Give every claim a source, not a conclusion
For each row, attach the exact exhibit and the part of that exhibit that does the work: a dated letter, award record, publication, contract, organizational record, or other source already approved by the firm. Then separate three things that drafts often blur:
- What the source says. Quote or describe the record faithfully.
- What the draft claims. State the requested inference in ordinary language.
- What is still missing. Identify the specific proof or explanation counsel may want, without silently supplying it.
A polished narrative cannot cure a source that does not establish the underlying fact. The checklist is deliberately unfriendly to confident wording that has no exhibit behind it.
3. Test the comparison before trusting the number
Compensation, awards, press, memberships, judging, and original contributions often include a comparison claim. Before accepting it, ask: compared with whom; for what period; in which market; and does the cited source use a compatible definition? A large number may be real and still be a poor comparison.
For compensation, separate already-paid amounts from a future target or equity value. For media coverage, distinguish an independent article from a company announcement. For letters, distinguish personal knowledge from a conclusion borrowed from the petition. These are review questions; counsel decides their legal significance.
4. Run a hostile-read pass
Once the map exists, ask the question a rushed reviewer would ask: “What would make this sentence hard to verify?” Common answers are an undated document, a missing author, a broad title with no defined role, a claimed impact without a baseline, or a comparison with no identified population.
Write these as questions for the firm, not as invented answers. A short, honest gap list is more valuable than an artificial certainty score.
5. Stop with a decision-ready memo
The output should be short enough to use: Facts; Evidence; Open issues; Suggested questions; Counsel decisions. The last section belongs to the lawyer. It is not a place for a model or a product to make a legal call.
ExtraordinaryOS turns that structure into a local workflow for a firm-approved file. It inventories claims and exhibits, organizes a hostile read, and keeps the final legal decision with counsel. It does not receive petition materials or client identity.
See the EB-1A second-review kit, or compare the workflow with the claim-to-exhibit test. The kit is a one-time $199 download. For help getting the workflow running, email [email protected]; please do not send client files.
This page is educational only. ExtraordinaryOS is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.