Why well-intentioned recommendation letters can undercut—rather than support—an extraordinary ability claim
By Youngwook (“Christian”) Park, Partner, Goel & Anderson, LLC
Recommendation letters serve a central role in EB-1A petitions. They are often the only place in the record where a human voice, rather than a certificate or a citation count, tells USCIS why a beneficiary matters to a field. For that reason, petitioners often spend enormous energy securing letters from prominent recommenders. Far less attention, however, is typically paid to a subtler problem: the language those letters use.
Notwithstanding the fact that a letter that describing a beneficiary as a “rising star” or an “emerging/promising leader” may be a compliment, under the EB-1A regulatory framework, such a letter can also be read as an admission that the beneficiary has not yet satisfied the legal requirement—and that admission can do more damage to a petition than a mediocre letter ever could.
The Legal Standard: Acclaim Today, Not Acclaim Tomorrow
Under 8 CFR 204.5(h), the EB-1A classification requires a showing of “sustained national or international acclaim,” and that the beneficiary is “one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.” The word “sustained” matters as much as “acclaim.” The inquiry isn’t trajectory; the question is whether the beneficiary has already reached the top of his or her the field, and has maintained that level of recognition.
Under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3), the threshold evidentiary requirement a petitioner must meet is whether the beneficiary has a one-time achievement—a major, internationally recognized award such as a Nobel Prize. If so, that alone can establish extraordinary ability. Absent that kind of award, the beneficiary must instead document at least three of ten regulatory criteria (awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, authorship, critical role, high salary, and others). It is this second pathway that Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), addressed directly: meeting three of the ten criteria is a counting exercise, not the end of the inquiry. Under Kazarian, USCIS must still conduct a final merits determination, weighing the full record to decide whether it actually reflects sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing. Recommendation letters are evaluated at both steps under Kazarian, but it is at the final merits stage, where USCIS adjudicators read letters holistically rather than checking boxes, that “rising star” language does the most harm.
Why “Rising Star” Language Creates RFE and NOID Risk
Adjudicators increasingly comb through letters for language that characterizes the beneficiary’s standing as prospective rather than current. A “rising star” letter to an adjudicator applying the regulatory standard can reach the conclusion that a beneficiary has not yet reached the required level. It is not unusual for exact language from a recommendation letter to be quoted in a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), as evidence undermining the very claim the letter was intended to support.
Certain individual adjectives tend to recur in problem letters and are worth flagging on their own: “young,” “promising,” and “junior.” None of these words is disqualifying in isolation, but each one describes trajectory rather than standing, and a letter built around them is telling the adjudicator the same thing a “rising star” letter does.
There is also a narrower version of this problem: language that frames the beneficiary as junior specifically to the recommender, rather than junior within the field generally. A letter can avoid the obvious “rising star” phrasing entirely and still create the same impression if it reads as a senior figure describing a promising junior colleague rather than one peer describing another.
This is a matter of drafting, not substance. Notwithstanding the underlying record—publications, citations, awards, judging roles, media coverage—that genuinely supports current top-of-field standing, an unintended mischaracterization may result in an RFE, NOID, or denial.
A Related Pitfall: Letting the Recommender Outshine the Beneficiary
A second, closely related problem shows up in letters that spend too much time establishing the recommender’s own stature. The instinct is understandable—a petition benefits when its recommenders are impressive—but a letter that dwells on the recommender’s credentials risks leaving the impression that the recommender, not the beneficiary, is the one who has truly reached the top of the field.
This tends to happen most visibly through side-by-side numbers: a letter that notes the recommender’s citation count or publication history in the same breath as the beneficiary’s own, far smaller figures, does more to highlight the gap between them than to support the beneficiary’s case. The better approach is to establish why the recommender is qualified to judge the beneficiary’s standing—title, role, honors—without setting up a direct numerical comparison, or to handle the recommender’s background separately, such as in a short attached bio, rather than folding it into the substance of the endorsement itself.
Where “Rising Star” Language Most Often Appears in EB-1A Letters
“Rising star” framing tends to appear most often when a senior mentor or former supervisor writes on behalf of an early- or mid-career beneficiary and instinctively frames the relationship in developmental terms. But it can also occur when a recommender is genuinely trying to be generous and assumes forward-looking praise reads as more impressive than it does under the regulatory standard. None of these instincts are unreasonable outside the immigration context. Inside an EB-1A petition, these “rising star” letters work against the beneficiary.
Drafting Guidance: Reframing Acclaim in the Present Tense
Effective letters:
- Describe the beneficiary’s standing in the present tense and anchor it to specific, concrete evidence: citation counts, named awards, editorial or judging roles, media coverage, leading roles in distinguished organizations.
- Use comparative language that reflects present superiority rather than future potential—”among the leading researchers in this subfield” rather than “on track to become one of the leading researchers.”
- Explain why the recommender is qualified to make that comparative judgment, giving the statement evidentiary weight rather than reading as a personal opinion.
- Avoid adjectives that imply a trajectory (e.g., “promising”) in favor of adjectives that imply a status already achieved (e.g., “consistently recognized”).
Where the underlying record genuinely does not yet support current top-of-field standing, that is valuable information before filing, not after. It may point toward other visa benefit requests.
The composition of the letter portfolio itself can help hedge against this problem. Recommendation letters from third parties with no prior working relationship to the beneficiary add an objective, field-wide vantage point that a mentor or former supervisor can’t fully replicate — and that vantage point naturally produces comparative, present-standing language rather than the developmental, watched-them-grow framing that leads to rising-star phrasing. A portfolio that mixes arm’s-length and close-relationship letters is therefore not just useful for credibility generally; it is also one of the more effective structural safeguards against the rising-star problem specifically.
Practical Steps for EB-1A Petitioners
- Audit every letter before filing. Read each letter carefully for both content and trajectory.
- Brief recommenders in advance. Provide recommenders with a short explanation of the “sustained acclaim” standard and examples of present-tense, evidence-anchored language, rather than leaving tone entirely to the recommender’s instincts.
- Tie every characterization to a concrete achievement. A recommender’s assessment carries more weight when it is paired with a citation count, an award, a leadership role, or coverage the officer can independently verify.
- Supplement with objective third-party evidence. Letters should corroborate—not substitute for—independent evidence of acclaim such as citation metrics, press coverage, or judging invitations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a “rising star” letter in an EB-1A petition?
It is a recommendation letter that describes an EB-1A beneficiary in terms of future promise—phrases like “rising star,” “emerging leader,” or “on the path to becoming”—rather than documenting acclaim the beneficiary has already achieved. Because EB-1A requires evidence of current, sustained acclaim, this kind of forward-looking language can be read as conceding that the beneficiary has not yet reached the required level.
Does USCIS actually penalize “future potential” language in EB-1A letters?
USCIS adjudicators can and do cite this exact language back to petitioners in Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny, treating it as evidence that undermines the sustained-acclaim showing. The underlying record may still be strong; the letter’s wording is what creates the risk.
What does “sustained national or international acclaim” mean under 8 CFR 204.5(h)?
It means the beneficiary must currently be recognized as one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field, and that this recognition is ongoing rather than a single past achievement.
How many reference letters should an EB-1A petition include, and from whom?
There is no fixed regulatory number, but petitions commonly include a mix of arm’s-length recommenders (who can speak to the beneficiary’s reputation without a personal relationship) and close colleagues or supervisors (who can speak to specific contributions). Mixing both types not only strengthens credibility but also helps avoid rising-star language, since arm’s-length recommenders tend to describe present standing in more comparative, field-wide terms.
Reviewing Recommendation Letters Before Filing
Since USCIS treats letter language as substantive evidence rather than color commentary, a mismatch between a genuinely strong record and an aspirational letter is an avoidable, but recurring, source of RFEs and denials.
Petitioners preparing an EB-1A case—or responding to an RFE built around this exact issue—should treat letter review as a distinct step in case preparation, not an afterthought to securing signatures. The team at Goel & Anderson is available to review recommendation letters and overall EB-1A strategy before filing, or to help reframe a case in response to an RFE or NOID that has already raised this concern.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with qualified immigration counsel before taking action in reliance on this alert.
© 2026 Goel & Anderson, LLC. All rights reserved.
