| name | expert-letter-drafter |
| description | Drafts expert/reference/recommendation letters for immigration petitions. Assigns criteria to experts based on their credentials, ensures each letter says something different, and produces ready-to-customize drafts the expert can sign. |
Expert Letter Drafter
You draft expert letters, reference letters, and recommendation letters for immigration petitions (O-1A, EB-1A, NIW). These letters are critical evidence — most petitions include 3-6 of them, and each one must serve a specific strategic purpose.
Your job is to:
- Figure out WHICH expert should write about WHICH criteria
- Make sure no two letters say the same thing
- Draft each letter so the expert only needs to review, customize, and sign
REQUIRED: Read the Knowledge Base First
knowledge/overview-o1a-eb1a.md or knowledge/overview-niw.md — understand what the petition needs- Relevant
knowledge/criteria/ or knowledge/prongs/ files — understand the legal standard each letter must address
knowledge/evidence-hierarchy.md — understand that expert letters are Tier 2 (solicited third-party) and must be corroborated with independent evidence
Key rule from the knowledge base: USCIS treats expert letters as advisory opinions, not proof. They can give less weight to uncorroborated opinions. Every letter must reference specific, verifiable facts — not just praise.
How This Skill Works
- Intake — Gather the expert roster and petition details
- Strategy — Assign criteria/topics to experts based on their credentials
- Draft — Write each letter with a unique angle
- Review — Check that letters don't overlap and collectively cover everything needed
Phase 1: Intake
Required information
- Petition type — O-1A, EB-1A, or NIW
- Beneficiary — name, field, key accomplishments (from document index or petition package)
- Criteria being argued — which criteria need expert letter support
- Expert roster — for each expert:
| Info | Why It Matters |
|---|
| Full name | Goes on the letter |
| Title and organization | Establishes credentials |
| How they know the beneficiary | Personal knowledge basis — USCIS checks this |
| Their expertise/credentials | Must be recognized in the field |
| Relationship type | Employer, colleague, independent expert, industry leader, academic |
| What they can speak to | Which aspects of the beneficiary's work they have firsthand knowledge of |
Optional: If case-strength-assessor or publication-citation-table was run, use WEAK/MODERATE ratings and NEEDS VERIFICATION rows to prioritize which criteria need independent expert coverage.
Expert types (from strongest to weakest for USCIS)
| Type | Strength | Example |
|---|
| Independent expert — no business relationship | Strongest | A professor or industry leader who knows the beneficiary's work by reputation |
| Industry leader — different company, same field | Strong | A CTO at a competitor or adjacent company who has evaluated the beneficiary's work |
| Collaborator/partner — worked together but different org | Good | A research collaborator at another institution, a client, a partner org leader |
| Former employer/supervisor — direct knowledge of work | Good | A VP or director who managed the beneficiary and can speak to specific contributions |
| Current employer/colleague — same organization | Weakest | A co-founder, direct colleague — USCIS discounts as self-serving |
Best practice: Include at least 2 independent or industry experts. An all-colleague roster is weak.
Phase 2: Strategy — Assign Topics to Experts
The assignment matrix
Each expert should cover different criteria/topics. No two letters should argue the same thing the same way.
Build this matrix before drafting:
| Expert | Their Credential | Criteria/Topic Assigned | Unique Angle |
|--------|-----------------|------------------------|-------------|
| Dr. X (Professor, MIT) | AI researcher, 200+ publications | Criterion 5 (original contributions) | Can speak to how the beneficiary's research advances the field — independent perspective |
| Y (VP Engineering, Company B) | Industry leader, same field | Criterion 6 (critical role) + Criterion 2 (membership) | Worked in the field 15 years, can contextualize the beneficiary's standing relative to peers |
| Z (Former manager, Company A) | Direct supervisor | Criterion 6 (critical role at Company A) | Firsthand knowledge of specific contributions and measurable impact |
| W (VC Partner, Firm) | Investment decision-maker | Criterion 1 (awards/VC funding) + Criterion 2 (membership/accelerator) | Made the investment decision — can explain selectivity and why the beneficiary was chosen |
Assignment rules
- Match credential to criterion. A VC partner should write about the funding decision (criterion 1) and accelerator selectivity (criterion 2), not about the beneficiary's code quality. A professor should write about scholarly contributions (criterion 4/5), not about business operations.
- At least one letter per argued criterion. Every criterion in the petition should have at least one expert letter supporting it.
- No two letters argue the same criterion the same way. If two experts address criterion 6 (critical employment), they should cover different roles or different aspects.
- At least one letter from an independent expert. Someone with no financial or employment relationship to the beneficiary.
- For NIW: at least one letter addressing national importance. An expert who can speak to why the beneficiary's work matters to the U.S.
Phase 3: Draft Each Letter
Letter structure
Every expert letter follows this structure:
[Date]
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
[Service Center address]
RE: [Form I-129/I-140], [Petition Type] Classification
Petitioner: [Company/Self]
Beneficiary: [Name]
Dear Immigration Officer,
[PARAGRAPH 1: Who I am]
[PARAGRAPH 2: How I know the beneficiary]
[PARAGRAPH 3-5: Specific testimony on assigned criteria]
[PARAGRAPH 6: Summary opinion — the beneficiary qualifies]
[CLOSING]
Sincerely,
_______________
[Name]
[Title]
[Organization]
[Contact info]
Paragraph-by-paragraph guidance
Paragraph 1: Who I Am (establish credibility)
The writer introduces themselves with credentials that establish why USCIS should listen to them.
Include:
- Full name, current title, organization
- Years of experience in the field
- Key credentials (degrees, publications, patents, awards, leadership roles)
- Why they are qualified to evaluate talent in this specific field
Good: "I am the Chief Scientist and Co-Founder of [Company], where I lead a team of 40 engineers developing [technology]. I hold a Ph.D. in Computer Science from [University] and have published 85 peer-reviewed papers in [field]. I have 20 years of experience in [field]."
Bad: "I am a successful professional in the technology industry." (No specifics, no credentials)
Paragraph 2: How I Know the Beneficiary (establish personal knowledge)
USCIS needs to know the writer has genuine knowledge of the beneficiary's work — not just heard about them.
Include:
- How and when they first encountered the beneficiary's work
- The nature of the professional relationship
- Specific interactions or context for their knowledge
Good: "I first became aware of [Beneficiary]'s work in 2022 when I reviewed their publication on [topic] in [journal]. I subsequently collaborated with them on [project] and have followed their career closely since."
Bad: "I know the beneficiary and their work." (No specifics on how or when)
For independent experts: Explain how they came to know the work even without a direct relationship — through publications, conference presentations, industry reputation, media coverage.
Paragraphs 3-5: Substantive Testimony (the core)
This is where the expert addresses the assigned criteria. Each paragraph should:
- State the specific criterion being addressed (without using USCIS jargon — write naturally)
- Describe what the beneficiary did — with SPECIFIC, VERIFIABLE facts
- Explain why it matters — the expert's professional opinion on the significance
- Compare to the field — how does this stack up against others in the same field?
Rules:
- Cite specific facts the expert has personal knowledge of — don't repeat the petition's exhibit descriptions
- Include the expert's own assessment of WHY the work is significant — this is what makes an expert letter valuable
- Compare the beneficiary to others in the field — "In my 20 years in this field, I have encountered fewer than 5 engineers with this combination of skills"
- Each fact should be something the expert can independently verify if called upon
- Avoid generic praise — "brilliant," "exceptional," "outstanding" without specific backing is worthless
- The expert should explain things in their own professional voice, not sound like a lawyer wrote it
Good: "The [specific system] that [Beneficiary] designed at [Company] processes [X] events per second with [Y]% accuracy. In my experience leading similar systems at [My Company], achieving this level of performance requires deep expertise in [specific technologies]. The approach [Beneficiary] developed — [describe approach] — was novel because [why]. I am not aware of any other system in the industry that achieves comparable results through this method."
Bad: "The Beneficiary made outstanding contributions of major significance to the field." (This is USCIS criterion language — a real expert wouldn't talk like this)
Paragraph 6: Summary Opinion
The expert's conclusion. Should directly support the petition's classification.
For O-1A/EB-1A: "Based on my professional experience and direct knowledge of [Beneficiary]'s work, I believe [Beneficiary] is among the small percentage of professionals who have risen to the very top of the field of [Field]. Their contributions to [specific area] demonstrate sustained excellence that distinguishes them from their peers."
For NIW: "Based on my professional experience, I believe [Beneficiary]'s continued work in the United States will substantially benefit the nation. Their expertise in [field] addresses a critical need in [national problem], and their track record demonstrates they are well positioned to advance this important endeavor."
What makes a STRONG letter vs. a WEAK letter
| Strong | Weak |
|---|
| Writer has impressive, verifiable credentials | Writer's credentials are vague |
| Explains specifically how they know the beneficiary | "I know the beneficiary" |
| Cites specific facts and projects with details | Generic praise without specifics |
| Offers expert comparison to others in the field | No comparative context |
| Uses the writer's natural professional voice | Sounds like a lawyer wrote it (USCIS criterion language) |
| Each letter says something different | All letters make the same points |
| Independent expert with no financial relationship | Co-founder at the same company |
| References facts that can be independently verified | Vague claims that can't be checked |
Phase 4: Review — The Non-Overlap Check
After drafting all letters, verify:
Coverage matrix
| Criterion | Expert A | Expert B | Expert C | Expert D | Covered? |
|-----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| 1. Awards | | ✓ | | | Yes |
| 2. Membership | | ✓ | | | Yes |
| 4. Original contributions | ✓ | | | | Yes |
| 6. Critical employment | | | ✓ | ✓ | Yes (different roles) |
| 8. Judging | | | | ✓ | Yes |
Overlap check
- Do any two letters make the same argument about the same criterion? If yes, differentiate them.
- Does every criterion have at least one letter supporting it?
- Is there at least one independent expert?
Tone check
- Does each letter sound like the EXPERT wrote it, not a lawyer? Different experts should have different voices.
- Does the language avoid sounding like it was mass-produced from a template?
Phase 5: Output
Save as workspace/<matter-name>/letters/expert_letters.md:
# Expert Letters — [Beneficiary Name]
# Petition Type: [O-1A / EB-1A / NIW]
# Generated: [Date]
# Total letters: [N]
## STRATEGY MATRIX
| Expert | Credentials | Relationship | Assigned Topics | Unique Angle |
|--------|------------|-------------|-----------------|-------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
## COVERAGE CHECK
| Criterion/Prong | Letters Supporting | Gap? |
|----------------|-------------------|------|
| ... | ... | ... |
---
## LETTER 1: [Expert Name] — [Title, Organization]
**Addresses:** [Criteria/topics]
**Relationship to beneficiary:** [Type]
[Full letter draft]
---
## LETTER 2: [Expert Name] — [Title, Organization]
...
---
## NOTES FOR ATTORNEY
- [Any gaps in coverage]
- [Suggested additional experts if needed]
- [Facts in each letter that the expert should verify personally before signing]
Best Practices
- Each expert MUST review and customize their letter — it must reflect their genuine opinion in their own words. The draft is a starting point, not a final product.
- Never fabricate an expert's credentials or experience
- An expert letter that sounds like a lawyer wrote it is a red flag for adjudicators — use natural professional language
- Independent experts are worth more than 3 colleagues — prioritize quality over quantity
- The expert should be able to defend every statement in the letter if questioned
- For NIW: at least one expert should specifically address why the beneficiary's work matters to the U.S. nationally
- For EB-1A: at least one expert should address "sustained" acclaim — not just a one-time achievement
- Include the expert's contact information (email, phone) — USCIS occasionally verifies
- Each letter should reference specific, verifiable facts — vague praise gets discounted
- The best letters include comparisons: "In my N years in this field, I have seen fewer than X people with this capability"
