Short answer
Yes. Judging a hackathon can satisfy the O-1A judging criterion, one of the eight listed in 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), of which you need three. It counts when you actually scored other people’s work in your same or an allied field, and the record shows why the event and your selection as a judge mattered.
- An invitation alone is not enough: USCIS guidance asks for proof that you actually took part in the judging.
- Meeting the criterion is only step one; USCIS then weighs all the evidence, and one small hackathon rarely carries much weight there.
- Demand keeps rising: USCIS received 10,010 O-1A petitions in FY 2023, up 84.7% from 5,420 in FY 2018.
- The same judging can later support an EB-1A, which uses nearly identical wording in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Hackathon judging has become one of the most common ways engineers, founders and researchers document the O-1A judging criterion. Whether it helps depends on details that are easy to overlook: what you judged, how you were chosen, and what you can prove afterward.
This guide walks through the regulation and USCIS guidance, which hackathon roles fit and which do not, how much weight judging carries in the final review, how to document it, and what the latest government data says about O-1A filings and costs. Figures checked October 2026.
What does the O-1A judging criterion actually require?
The judging criterion requires evidence of your participation, on a panel or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization. That is the full text of 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4), and it says nothing about hackathons, journals or competitions specifically. Any setting where you formally evaluated other people’s work can qualify if it meets those terms.
USCIS adds one practical requirement in its O-1A guidance: the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also actually participated in the judging. The guidance gives examples drawn from academia, such as peer reviewing for journals, reviewing conference abstracts, sitting on dissertation committees and reviewing government research funding. Hackathons are not named, but nothing in the regulation limits the criterion to academic settings. Our guide to all eight O-1A criteria covers how judging sits alongside the others.
Two further rules shape how hackathon judging is read. Eligibility must exist when the petition is filed under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1), so judging done afterward does not count for that filing. And if a criterion does not readily apply to your occupation, the regulations allow comparable evidence, though USCIS guidance says a general, unsupported assertion that a criterion does not apply is not enough. The table below breaks the criterion into its five working parts.
| Element | What the rule says | What it means at a hackathon | Typical proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role | Participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge | You were one of the people who decided placements, not a mentor, host or volunteer | Invitation naming you as a judge; public judge list |
| Work of others | The work judged belongs to other people | You scored projects built by participating teams | Judging portal export or score sheets |
| Field | Same or an allied field of specialization | The projects sat in your technical or business area | Track descriptions; organizer letter on the tracks you judged |
| Actual participation | Invited and actually judged, per USCIS guidance | Accepting the invitation is not the same as scoring | Confirmation that scores were submitted; thank-you note after the event |
| Timing | Eligibility must exist at the time of filing | Only judging completed before the petition date counts | Dated invitation, event dates and score timestamps |
Source: USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 2, Part M, Ch. 4 (current 2026); 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1).
Which hackathon roles count, and which do not?
Scoring submissions as a named judge at an external hackathon in your field fits the criterion; mentoring, organizing or holding an unused invitation does not. Between those ends sit roles that technically fit but add little weight, such as internal company hackathons or seats that came with a sponsorship package.
Three questions sort most cases. First, did you evaluate and rank work, or did you help produce it? Second, was the work in your field? An AI researcher judging a machine learning track is in the same field; the same researcher judging a marketing plan contest is not. Third, why were you chosen? Officers give more weight to a role that came from your expertise than to one anyone could sign up for.
| Hackathon role | Fits the criterion? | Likely weight in the final review | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring finalists at a large public hackathon in your field | Yes | Moderate to high | External organizer, competitive field, expert judge panel |
| Judging an internal company hackathon | Often | Low | Colleagues’ work, limited standing outside the employer |
| Judging a student or university hackathon | Often | Low to moderate | Depends on scale, sponsors and how judges were selected |
| Mentoring teams only | No | None as judging | Helping build is not evaluating |
| Organizing or hosting only | No | None as judging | Running the event is not judging the work |
| Sponsor-purchased judge seat | Weak | Low | Seat not tied to your expertise |
| Judging outside your field | Weak | Low | Not the same or an allied field |
| Invited but never submitted scores | No | None | No proof of actual participation |
Source: Einstein Visa Experts reading of 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4) and USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 2, Part M, Ch. 4; not a USCIS table.
Is one hackathon enough, and how much weight does it carry?
One documented judging role can technically meet the criterion, because the regulation does not set a minimum number. Weight is a separate question. USCIS reviews O-1A petitions in two stages: it first checks whether at least three criteria are met, then evaluates the totality of the evidence to decide whether you are one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. We explain that structure in the Kazarian two-step, in plain language.
At the second stage, the officer asks what your judging says about your standing. Judging at a single event with an open call for volunteer judges says less than repeated invitations from well known organizers who choose judges for their expertise. In a 2024 non-precedent decision on an EB-1A appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office faulted a petitioner whose judging was not shown to be at events of significant stature and noted that his record pointed to a single event at a leading federation. Non-precedent decisions do not bind other cases, but they show the kind of questions officers ask.
A judge’s badge proves you were invited. Your submitted scores prove you judged. USCIS asks for the second, and the final review asks why you were chosen.
Context is what turns judging into weight: the number of submissions, the organizers, how judges were selected, who else served and which round you judged. A finals panel at a large event reads differently from a first-round screen at a small meetup.
Illustrative profile
Illustrative profile: a machine learning engineer at a venture-backed startup has judged two hackathons in the past eighteen months. At the first, a large public event, she was invited by the organizers after a conference talk, scored finalist projects in the AI track through the event’s judging portal and has the invitation, her score export and a thank-you letter listing the judging panel. At the second, an internal company hack day, she ranked colleagues’ demos. The first event maps cleanly to the criterion and carries some weight at the final review. The second still involves judging, but it adds little, because the work and the selection were internal. In a petition, the first leads and the second supports.
How do you document hackathon judging step by step?
Document each judging role as it happens, because the most persuasive evidence is created at the time and is hard to recover later. A practical sequence:
- Keep the invitation. Save the original email or message that asks you to judge, with the date, the event name and the track.
- Capture the selection process. Save the organizer’s description of how judges are chosen, or ask the organizer to state it in a later letter.
- Record the scale. Save the event page showing the number of participants, teams or submissions, prizes and sponsors.
- Prove you scored. Export or screenshot your completed scores, rubric and submission list from the judging portal, with timestamps.
- Get the panel list. Save the public page listing judges, which also shows the company you kept.
- Request a letter afterward. Ask the organizer for a short signed letter confirming your role, the round judged, the criteria used and the dates.
- Map it to your field. Write a short note tying the track you judged to your specialization, using the event’s own descriptions.
Our profile building work helps people plan judging roles and other evidence well before filing, so the record is complete on the petition date rather than assembled after an RFE.
What do the latest O-1A numbers and costs look like?
USCIS received 10,010 O-1A petitions in FY 2023 and approved 9,490, the most recent year in its published O-1A fact sheet. Receipts rose from 5,420 in FY 2018, and approvals rose from 4,810 in FY 2018, which means approvals grew 97.3% over five years as more founders and engineers turned to the O-1A.
The approval rate, calculated as approvals divided by completed cases, has stayed in a narrow band between 89.9% and 93.8% every year from FY 2018 to FY 2023, and stood at 92.4% in FY 2023. That still left 780 completed petitions in FY 2023 that were denied or administratively closed. STEM roles accounted for 4,560 of the 9,490 approvals, about 48.1%, according to the same USCIS data.
A high approval rate reflects the petitions people chose to file, not a low bar. Consular data shows the same growth: the Department of State issued 19,457 O-1 visas in FY 2024, against 8,838 in FY 2020. These counts cover O-1A and O-1B together and only people who obtained a visa abroad.
| Visa class | FY 2020 | FY 2021 | FY 2022 | FY 2023 | FY 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O-1 (principal) | 8,838 | 7,294 | 19,102 | 18,994 | 19,457 |
| O-2 (support staff) | 3,919 | 2,870 | 11,586 | 13,335 | 13,922 |
| O-3 (spouse or child) | 2,658 | 2,838 | 6,234 | 6,453 | 6,035 |
Source: U.S. Department of State, Report of the Visa Office, Table XV(B), FY 2020 to FY 2024.
Government fees for one O-1 petition filed by a standard employer with premium processing total $4,620 in 2026: the $1,055 Form I-129 fee, the $600 Asylum Program Fee and the $2,965 premium processing fee. Premium processing rose to $2,965 on March 1, 2026, up from $2,805, an increase of $160. Small employers pay $530 for the I-129 and $300 for the Asylum Program Fee, and nonprofits pay $0 for the Asylum Program Fee.
| Fee | Standard employer | Small employer (25 or fewer FTE) | Nonprofit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form I-129, O petition | $1,055 | $530 | $530 |
| Asylum Program Fee | $600 | $300 | $0 |
| Premium processing (Form I-907) | $2,965 | $2,965 | $2,965 |
| Total with premium processing | $4,620 | $3,795 | $3,495 |
Source: 8 CFR 106.2; 89 FR 6194 (effective April 1, 2024); 91 FR 1059 (effective March 1, 2026). Totals are Einstein Visa Experts arithmetic.
Premium processing means USCIS must act within 15 business days, but it does not change the evidence standard for judging.
How does hackathon judging work in different fields?
The same hackathon role can be strong for one profile and marginal for another, because both the field test and the standing test depend on your specialization.
Founders and startup executives
For founders and startup executives, hackathons sit alongside pitch competitions, accelerator application reviews and startup award panels as judging venues. Business-track judging, where you evaluate viability, market and execution, fits a founder’s field more naturally than judging pure engineering tracks. Accelerator review panels often carry more weight because judges are chosen for operating or investing experience.
Researchers and scientists
For researchers and scientists, peer review for journals and conferences remains the most familiar judging evidence, and it is the type USCIS names in its own examples. Hackathon judging can add to it when the event is research-driven, for example a challenge run by a scientific society, a national lab or a university center, with tracks that match your area.
Engineers and technical professionals
For engineers and technical professionals, hackathon judging is often the most accessible form of the criterion, since many engineers do not review academic papers. The strongest cases involve finals judging at large external events, named tracks that match the engineer’s specialty, and repeat invitations.
Artists and creatives
For artists and creatives filing an O-1B, there is no judging criterion at all; the six O-1B criteria focus on lead roles, reviews, commercial or critical success and recognition. Judging a design or creative hackathon may still help as context for recognition by experts. Designers and creative technologists who file an O-1A in business or science, or later an EB-1A, can use judging directly.
Athletes and coaches
For athletes and coaches, the parallel is judging, refereeing or officiating competitions in your sport. The same tests apply: actual participation, the stature of the events and how officials are selected.
What are the most common mistakes with hackathon judging evidence?
Most weak judging claims fail for documentation reasons, not because the role was unsuitable. The patterns we see most often:
- Filing the invitation without proof of scoring. USCIS guidance asks for actual participation, so an accepted invitation alone leaves the criterion open.
- Calling mentoring judging. Office hours, workshops and team support are valuable, but they are not evaluation of others’ work.
- Ignoring the field. Judging tracks far from your specialization invites the question of whether the work was in the same or an allied field.
- No context on the event. Without participant counts, organizers and selection process, the officer has no way to judge stature, and the role carries little weight at the final review.
- Counting judging after filing. Roles completed after the petition date cannot be added in an RFE response for that petition.
- Relying on judging alone. Judging is one of eight criteria, and with approvals above 89.9% every year since FY 2018, the records that struggle are usually thin across several criteria, not just one.
Does hackathon judging also count toward an EB-1A?
Yes, on the same terms. The EB-1A judging criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iv) uses nearly identical wording: participation, individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. The EB-1A green card requires 3 of 10 criteria instead of 3 of 8, and its final merits review asks a similar question about sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.
Because the standard is similar, judging documented for an O-1A carries over directly. The difference is time: by the EB-1A, officers expect a longer record, and repeated, increasingly selective judging roles show the sustained part of sustained acclaim. If you are preparing an O-1A now, see our O-1A petition preparation page for how we build that record.
Frequently asked questions
Does a virtual or online hackathon count for O-1A judging?
It can. The regulation does not require judging to happen in person. What matters is the same evidence as any other event: an invitation, proof that you scored or ranked submissions, the work you judged sitting in your field, and documentation of the event’s size, sponsors and selection process for judges. Portal screenshots of your completed scores are often the most direct proof.
Does mentoring at a hackathon count as judging?
No. Mentoring means helping teams build, while the criterion covers evaluating the work of others as a judge. Mentoring can still appear in the record as context for your standing, but it should not be presented under the judging criterion. If you did both, document the roles separately.
Can I use hackathon judging that happened after my O-1A was filed?
Not for that petition. Under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1), a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing, so judging that takes place afterward cannot be used to meet a criterion in a pending case, including in an RFE response. It can support a later filing, such as a new O-1 petition or an EB-1A.
Do I need a letter from the hackathon organizer?
It is not legally required, but it is usually the clearest single document. A strong letter states how judges were chosen, how many submissions and teams competed, which rounds you judged, the criteria you scored against and the dates. Pair it with the original invitation and a screenshot or export of your submitted scores so the letter is corroborated.
Does unpaid hackathon judging count?
Yes. The regulation does not require payment, and most hackathon judging is volunteer work. What weakens a judging claim is not the absence of pay but a selection process that anyone could join, a seat that was purchased through sponsorship, or work judged outside your field. Explain why you were chosen, not whether you were paid.
Is hackathon judging enough on its own to get an O-1A?
No. Judging is one of eight criteria, and you need evidence for at least three, unless you hold a major internationally recognized award. Even with three criteria met, USCIS then weighs the entire record to decide whether it shows sustained national or international acclaim. Judging works best as one part of a record that also includes contributions, media or a critical role.
Talking it through
If you have judged hackathons and want to know how they would read in a petition, a consultation is the fastest way to find out. We review each role against the criterion, check what evidence you already hold, identify gaps such as missing score records or organizer letters, and look at which other criteria your record can support so judging is one part of a complete case.
When the record is ready, we prepare the full petition, and it is reviewed, signed and filed by an independent licensed immigration attorney. To start, book a consultation.
Sources
- eCFR, 8 CFR 214.2(o), Classification of O nonimmigrants (current as of October 2026)
- USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 2, Part M, Chapter 4, O-1 Beneficiaries (current as of October 2026)
- USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-02, Evidentiary Requirements for O-1 Nonimmigrants (January 8, 2025)
- USCIS, STEM-Related Petition Trends: EB-2 and O-1A Categories, FY 2018 to FY 2023 (data as of October 2023)
- U.S. Department of State, Report of the Visa Office, Table XV(B), Nonimmigrant Visas Issued by Classification, FY 2020 to FY 2024
- Federal Register, Adjustment to Premium Processing Fees, 91 FR 1059 (January 12, 2026)
- Federal Register, USCIS Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 89 FR 6194 (January 31, 2024)
- eCFR, 8 CFR 106.2, Fees (current as of October 2026)
- eCFR, 8 CFR 106.4, Premium processing service (current as of October 2026)
- eCFR, 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1), Eligibility at time of filing (current as of October 2026)
- eCFR, 8 CFR 204.5(h), Aliens with extraordinary ability (current as of October 2026)
- USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, Non-Precedent Decision In Re: 30470568 (April 15, 2024)