Why We Sometimes Decline Expert Opinion Letter Engagements
Katya M. and Zachary J. PhD
Article Summary:
At ProfVal, we prioritize integrity and independent expert judgment when preparing Expert Opinion Letters.
Our review process helps identify weaknesses in supporting evidence, giving clients and their attorneys an opportunity to address concerns before filing.
We sometimes decline engagements when prospective clients do not meet our requirements or when we or an expert believe(s) the evidence cannot support the requested opinion.
While these decisions may disappoint some prospective clients, we believe our standards result in more authentic, honest, and credible Expert Opinion Letters.
This article is informational and does not constitute legal advice. ProfVal is not a law firm. Clients should consult their immigration attorney regarding eligibility, petition strategy, and filing decisions.
An immigration petition represents a combination of years of professional achievements, significant financial investment, and important plans for the future. Understandably, beneficiaries, employers, self-petitioners, and the attorneys who represent them want to present their achievements in a way that gives their petition the best chance at success.
What makes a petition persuasive, however, is not the achievements alone but, instead, the evidence that authentically supports the arguments being made.
At ProfVal, we review each client's qualifications and supporting documents before sharing documents with an expert to deliver an Expert Opinion Letter. Thus, we work to support cases we believe align with the intent of each visa. Each project goes through several stages of internal review before reaching an expert. For clients pursuing self-petitioned cases under EB-1 and EB-2 NIW, we also require legal representation as a requirement of client acceptance.
We require legal representation for self-petitions for a variety of reasons. At a fundamental level, we do not offer legal advice. At the same time, we have found that prospective clients without legal representation sometimes misunderstand how their qualifications relate to immigration requirements, offer arguments that are not supported by the evidence, or rely on inaccurate information. AI-generated assessments produced by self-petitioners can make this more challenging by presenting overly favorable conclusions, sometimes with nonsensical qualification requirements.
Sometimes, even after our preliminary reviews, an expert may conclude that the evidence does not support a favorable opinion.
How We Review Evidence Before an Expert Opinion Letter
Each visa classification has its own, distinct requirements and our team seeks to identify all evidence before sharing documents with a relevant expert. Depending on the claims being made and the visa being considered, supporting records of professional achievements may include:
Employment records and detailed descriptions of responsibilities
Documentation of project outcomes and the professional’s unique contribution(s)
Published articles and information about the publications
Official award documentation and selection requirements
Compensation records and relevant comparative data
Detailed letters from people with direct knowledge of the beneficiary's work
The purpose of gathering these materials is to give our team and the expert a reliable foundation for assessing the beneficiary's qualifications. A strong professional background may be relevant to several immigration options, but it does not establish eligibility for the category that a professional is petitioning for.
Therefore, a professional’s arguments must be tailored to address the standards of the visa classification pursued.
For example, an H-1B Expert Opinion Letter may address specialty occupation requirements or academic qualifications, while an EB-1 Expert Opinion Letter may evaluate the significance of a professional's achievements. Similarly, an EB-2 NIW Expert Opinion Letter may examine the professional's proposed endeavor and professional qualifications, while an O-1 Expert Opinion Letter may assess achievements and recognition within a particular field.
In each case, our team works collaboratively with the expert to help them assess the documentation provided in alignment with the appropriate visa.
Independent Expert Review and ProfVal's Internal Assessment
An Expert Opinion Letter should reflect the professional judgment of the expert who signs it. Because of our multifaceted acceptance requirements, the majority of beneficiaries and petitioners who make it to an expert are professionals whom the experts deem qualified.
However, because the expert must be able to explain their conclusions and show how the evidence supports them, a letter may be declined by our team or by the expert when the documentation is not in alignment with the visa requirements.
We believe this independence is essential.
Our team works with experts to prepare letters that are accurate, well-researched, and consistent with their professional opinions. This includes reviewing supporting documentation, conducting research, preparing drafts, and incorporating the expert's analysis and feedback.
The expert must review the relevant information, determine which conclusions they can support, and approve the final letter. When an expert disagrees with a proposed argument or conclusion, we work to address those concerns rather than simply asking the expert to sign the document.
An expert's signature should confirm their professional judgment, not substitute for it.
Below are a few examples of situations where ProfVal or the experts we worked with were unable to provide a favorable letter.
O-1: Expert Assessment
In a recent O-1 Expert Opinion Letter engagement, an expert reviewed a client's professional achievements and found that the documentation did not adequately support the claimed criteria. In particular, the professional - an attorney from South America - had, in the expert’s opinion, not met the requirements to practice law within the United States. Additionally, the O-1 applicant provided publications and awards that the expert felt were not sufficiently rigorous to be deemed as reputable.
H-1B: Preliminary Review
In an H-1B Expert Opinion Letter inquiry, ProfVal declined to proceed because the documentation did not establish that the beneficiary had the equivalent of a bachelor's degree. The beneficiary held an associate's degree, along with non-university coursework. We determined that the documentation did not provide a sufficient basis for the opinion.
Particularly in a situation like this where the basic requirements were not met, we felt that acceptance would not help anyone - the beneficiary would have still seen a denial and we, along with the expert, would have been deemed as non-credible.
EB-1 and EB-2 NIW: Preliminary Review
For EB-1 and EB-2 NIW cases, we occasionally encounter prospective petitioners who have a poor understanding of the intent of the visa classification they are pursuing. As such, we have declined multiple engagements where prospective clients overstated their qualifications or sought opinions that the available evidence could not reasonably support.
For example, one EB-2 NIW prospective client had several years of experience as a barista and had recently completed a university degree. While these were legitimate professional and academic accomplishments, they did not provide a sufficient foundation for a favorable expert assessment the individual was requesting.
For EB-1 cases, we have also encountered prospective petitioners who rely on publications in questionable or predatory journals as key evidence of professional distinction. While publication records may be relevant, the existence of publications alone does not establish their significance. An expert must consider the credibility of the publications and what they demonstrate about the beneficiary's work.
These situations demonstrate why we review qualifications before accepting an engagement. We do not believe it serves the client, their attorney, or the expert to proceed when the available evidence does not reasonably support the requested opinion.
These examples show why both preliminary assessment and independent expert review matter: each provides an opportunity to identify gaps in the evidence before a letter is finalized. Clients and their attorneys rely on the resulting letter as an expression of the expert's own professional judgment.
EB-1 and EB-2 NIW: Expert Review Led to Improved Evidence
In several EB-1 and EB-2 NIW engagements, experts have requested additional contextual information or included caveats within their letters when the available documentation did not fully support certain conclusions.
In one case involving a petitioner in the medical field, the reviewing expert identified that the documentation lacked evidence of an important professional credential relevant to the petition. In another, an expert questioned the merits of a business and asked whether the petitioner might consider another way of addressing the needs of their target market.
In both cases, the petitioners were able to adapt their documentation based on the expert requests:
In the first example, the petitioner was able to provide the missing documentation a few weeks later, ultimately strengthening the evidence supporting their petition and enabling the expert to feel comfortable with providing a supportive letter. In situations like this, the expert sometimes references their request within the letter.
In the second example, the petitioner and their attorney revisited the business plan that they had developed. Beyond enabling the expert to feel comfortable signing off on the letter, the petitioner expressed gratitude based on their belief that the adaptations would lead to a higher probability of product market fit.
Perhaps, surprisingly, discussing their honest apprehensions and the responses that enable an expert to change their mind can lead to a stronger, more credible letter.
Why Integrity and Transparent Feedback Matter
At ProfVal, we recognize the time, expense, and personal hopes involved in an immigration petition. When our review identifies a weakness, we believe clients and their attorneys deserve to understand what is missing and whether additional documentation could address the concern.
We also recognize that our requirements may disappoint some prospective clients.
For example, individuals pursuing EB-1 or EB-2 NIW petitions without legal representation may be frustrated that we cannot provide an Expert Opinion Letter without an immigration attorney involved. In these cases, we can refer them to another provider. Similarly, we sometimes decline engagements when the evidence does not support the requested opinion.
However, we believe these standards ultimately benefit the attorneys and clients we serve. Our goal is not simply to produce favorable letters with an expert's signature, but to develop authentic, honest, and well-supported professional opinions that - to the best of our ability - reflect the bipartisan nature of employment-based immigration that makes the United States stronger.
By carefully reviewing evidence, identifying weaknesses, and respecting each expert's independent judgment, we strive to honestly and crediby produce the best Expert Opinion Letters available. As our examples illustrate, this process can also uncover missing evidence that clients and their attorneys can address before filing.
While we may not be the right provider for every prospective client, we believe our commitment to integrity helps those who meet our requirements obtain credible Expert Opinion Letters that can contribute to stronger, better-supported immigration petitions.
