expert-letter-drafter

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:

1. Figure out WHICH expert should write about WHICH criteria
2. Make sure no two letters say the same thing
3. 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

1. Intake — Gather the expert roster and petition details
2. Strategy — Assign criteria/topics to experts based on their credentials
3. Draft — Write each letter with a unique angle
4. Review — Check that letters don't overlap and collectively cover everything needed

---

Phase 1: Intake

Required information

1. Petition type — O-1A, EB-1A, or NIW
2. Beneficiary — name, field, key accomplishments (from document index or petition package)
3. Criteria being argued — which criteria need expert letter support
4. 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:

1. State the specific criterion being addressed (without using USCIS jargon — write naturally)
2. Describe what the beneficiary did — with SPECIFIC, VERIFIABLE facts
3. Explain why it matters — the expert's professional opinion on the significance
4. 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"