Key Takeaways
- EB-1A approval requires evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under the Kazarian two-step framework, followed by a final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.
- Each criterion calls for specific, objective documentation such as citations, expert letters, or salary comparisons, not raw credentials alone.
- Common RFE triggers include weak original-contributions evidence, lack of independent expert letters, and poor connections between achievements and top-of-field standing.
- Denials do not bar refiling. Petitioners can strengthen their record and submit a new petition with updated accomplishments.
- Jumpstart Immigration helps founders, researchers, and executives translate credentials into criterion-satisfying evidence, with a 98% approval rate.
Talk to Jumpstart About Your EB-1A Evidence
How USCIS Evaluates EB-1A Evidence: The Kazarian Two-Step Framework
The Kazarian two-step framework reshaped how USCIS officers assess EB-1A evidence. Before the Ninth Circuit’s March 2010 ruling in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, USCIS officers evaluated each EB-1A regulatory criterion individually. They folded the merits and quality analysis into the criteria analysis instead of using a separate final merits determination. The court rejected that practice in favor of a two-part approach.
USCIS then adopted a two-step EB-1A adjudication process. Step One is an objective threshold screen that counts regulatory criteria. Step Two is a qualitative final merits determination. USCIS formalized this approach in its December 22, 2010 policy memo (PM-602-0005) and the Adjudicator’s Field Manual. The Ninth Circuit’s two-step discussion was largely dicta, and USCIS made the framework mandatory through policy guidance.
At Step One, the officer checks whether the submitted evidence genuinely satisfies the regulatory description of at least three criteria. This is a quality-control review of the evidence itself. The USCIS Policy Manual is explicit that meeting the regulatory criteria in Step One alone does not establish eligibility. Step Two is where most petitions succeed or fail. The officer evaluates the totality of the record to decide whether the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field with sustained national or international acclaim.
Older assumptions that a fixed citation count or a certain number of expert letters guarantees approval are unreliable. The criteria are qualitative, not quantitative. The same evidence can satisfy one criterion and fail another depending on how it is documented and framed.
That qualitative standard also separates EB-1A from the other employment-based route many petitioners consider. EB-1A and EB-2 NIW apply materially different evidentiary standards. The table below highlights where those standards diverge so you can see why a profile that supports NIW may still fall short of EB-1A.
| Attribute | EB-1A | EB-2 NIW |
|---|---|---|
| Standard of Proof | Extraordinary ability with sustained acclaim | Preponderance of the evidence applied to the three Dhanasar prongs |
| Framework | Kazarian two-step | Matter of Dhanasar three-prong |
| Evidence Focus | Proof of sustained acclaim | Future impact of proposed endeavor |
| Final Merits Review | Yes, qualitative totality assessment | Final merits determination applies to the underlying EB-2 classification; the NIW itself turns on a discretionary waiver analysis |
The EB-1A standard is materially higher than NIW. Profiles that support EB-1A usually also support NIW. Many strong NIW profiles, however, do not reach EB-1A’s sustained-acclaim requirement.
EB-1A Criteria Evidence: What Counts Vs. What Doesn’t For Five Key Criteria
This breakdown focuses on the criteria most relevant to researchers, scientists, and tech founders. These profiles most often see RFEs and denials when documentation falls short.
Original Contributions Of Major Significance
What counts: Evidence that the field adopted, cited, extended, or commercialized the contribution. The USCIS Policy Manual (Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2, Criterion 5) identifies several types of relevant evidence: published materials about the significance of the person’s original work; testimonials, letters, and affidavits about that work; documentation that the work was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field; patents or licenses deriving from the work, or evidence of commercial use; and detailed letters from experts explaining the nature and significance of the contribution.
Under USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2, the criterion involves a two-step analysis. First, the officer asks whether the person has made original contributions in the field. Second, the officer asks whether those original contributions are of major significance to the field. USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office hold that “major significance” under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence that the work has been widely adopted or replicated by unaffiliated people in the field, with specific information about its impact on the field as a whole. A petitioner may also show that the contributions have been widely implemented, have remarkably influenced the field, or have otherwise reached a level of major significance.
What doesn’t: A patent or publication standing alone without proof it was used, cited, or implemented. AAO EB-1A appeal decisions show that contributions used only within one company, without evidence of broader impact, are treated as significant only to that employer. Expert letters that call the work “important” without explaining what was novel, what problem was solved, and what downstream impact followed are conclusory and carry little weight. They help mainly as context for stronger documentary evidence.
Scholarly Authorship
What counts: Peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and published conference proceedings in recognized venues. The USCIS Policy Manual defines a scholarly article as one that reports on original research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse; is written by a researcher or expert in the field, often affiliated with a college or university; is generally peer reviewed by other experts; and includes footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography. Evidence of the publication’s standing and citation analysis showing engagement by independent researchers strengthens this criterion.
What doesn’t: Self-published writing, blog posts, non-peer-reviewed seminars, conference abstracts, or posters. Under the USCIS Policy Manual, a qualifying EB-1A scholarly article reports original research, is written by an expert, and is generally peer reviewed. Self-published writing, blog posts, non-peer-reviewed seminars, conference abstracts, and posters usually do not satisfy this criterion. Peer-reviewed conference proceedings from recognized conferences and publications in established platforms with genuine editorial standards may qualify. A bibliography submitted without context about influence or field norms has limited value. Submitting self-authored content as press coverage, confusing authorship with published material about the petitioner, is a common and damaging error.
Judging The Work Of Others
What counts: Peer review for scholarly journals with invitation plus proof of completed review, grant panel service such as NIH or NSF, dissertation committees at other institutions, and award judging. Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the criterion requires evidence of the applicant’s participation, individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. Qualifying service includes peer review for established journals, conference program committees, grant review panels, and award juries. The service must involve actual completed judging, not a mere invitation.
High-impact venues such as Nature, Science, top-ranked IEEE Transactions journals, and NEJM carry substantially more weight, especially when impact factor and acceptance rate are documented. Conference proceedings alone are generally viewed with more skepticism. Grant review panel participation is often treated as more substantive than routine journal peer review because it reflects greater selectivity and more consequential judgment. The strength of any judging activity depends on the venue’s selectivity and how clearly the role reflects recognized standing in the field.
What doesn’t: Routine peer review presented without context about the venue’s selectivity. The USCIS Policy Manual specifies that the petitioner must show the person was invited to judge and actually participated. Documentation can include a copy of the review or a request from the journal plus evidence confirming completion. Informal evaluation and internal organizational work generally do not satisfy this criterion. Vague claims of “serving as a reviewer” without documentation are insufficient. Internal or workplace judging activities can qualify when they are selective, substantial, based on professional expertise, and well documented.
Leading Or Critical Role
What counts: Senior research positions at distinguished institutions, principal investigator roles on funded grants, founder roles in startups with significant venture funding, or technical lead roles where performance clearly drove organizational outcomes. The USCIS Policy Manual (Chapter 4, O-1 Beneficiaries) notes that for a startup, officers may treat significant funding from government entities, venture capital funds, angel investors, or similar funders as a positive factor for distinguished reputation.
Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the criterion requires evidence that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. A leading role may be shown by title with matching duties. A critical role is judged by the significance of the petitioner’s performance and impact. A supporting role can qualify when the performance was important to key outcomes.
What doesn’t: Job titles alone. Seniority without proof that the role was critical. Performance reviews without evidence of organizational impact. A “Lead Engineer” title is weak by itself. Documentation that the petitioner was the only engineer whose sign-off was required before deployment, with project failure risk tied to that review, is persuasive evidence.
High Salary
What counts: Compensation compared against data such as BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) for the petitioner’s specific occupation, geographic market, and experience level. USCIS also accepts other sources, including CareerOneStop and industry-specific salary surveys. BLS data alone may be too broad for senior roles. Industry salary surveys with documented methodology and total compensation breakdowns, including equity, are especially important in technology roles where base salary understates total compensation. A field-normalized comparison such as “95th percentile among software engineers in the San Francisco Bay Area at the principal level” is far more defensible than a raw salary figure.
What doesn’t: Raw salary numbers without comparative context. Self-reported claims without third-party verification. Comparisons against unrelated occupations or geographic areas. The USCIS Policy Manual (Chapter 4, O-1 Beneficiaries) notes that broad occupational descriptions covering multiple occupations or industries may not provide an accurate comparison. Officers evaluate persons working outside the United States based on wage statistics or comparable evidence relevant to the applicable work location, instead of simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars.
EB-1A RFE Evidence: Common Triggers
Most EB-1A RFEs stem from strategic evidence-framing errors. Petitioners often list credentials without connecting them to sustained acclaim or industry impact. Some RFEs also arise from officer misunderstanding of evidence or credibility concerns.
The most common RFE triggers include:
- Original contributions criterion: USCIS acknowledges the work exists but questions whether it had major significance. According to Headman Law Group’s 2026 attorney guide, original contributions of major significance is the single most-challenged EB-1A criterion in their caseload, and RFEs almost always attack the “of major significance” half.
- Final merits determination: The officer finds three criteria met but concludes the totality does not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of the field. According to WriteWing’s analysis of EB-1A denial reasons, failure on the final merits determination accounts for over 23% of denials, while failure to meet the minimum three regulatory criteria accounts for 42%.
- Evidence gaps: Publications submitted without context about influence or field norms, citations without explanation of what they mean in the specific sub-field, and expert letters from collaborators instead of independent experts.
- Assuming citation counts are self-explanatory: Citation counts are evidence that other researchers are engaging with the work, but not by themselves evidence of major significance. Presenting a raw number without field-normalized context is a reliable way to draw an RFE.
- Relying on easy but weak criteria: Claiming criteria with thin documentation can weaken the overall record and give the officer more points to question.
As of the August 5, 2026 USCIS Policy Alert (PA-2026-05), USCIS officers have full discretion to deny a benefit request, including a petition, without first issuing an RFE or NOID when required initial evidence is missing or the record does not establish eligibility. Officers may still issue an RFE or NOID when appropriate, and some regulations or policies require different procedures. Documentation failures at filing time are therefore especially consequential.
What Happens If Your EB-1A Is Denied?
A denial appears in the petitioner’s USCIS record but does not prevent future filings or applications for other visa categories. Under the February 28, 2025 USCIS Policy Memorandum, denial of an employment-based petition such as an EB-1A I-140 does not by itself trigger removal proceedings for the principal beneficiary. An individual who maintains a valid underlying nonimmigrant status, such as H-1B or O-1, is not subject to a Notice to Appear. USCIS may issue an NTA to dependent family members whose I-539 is denied and who lack valid underlying status.
Options after a denial include:
- Filing a motion to reopen or reconsider, asking USCIS to consider new evidence or apply the law correctly to the existing record. Most motions to reopen or reconsider are filed with USCIS on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the appropriate fee, though certain exceptions exist. For example, motions regarding asylum decisions do not require Form I-290B or a filing fee.
- Appealing to the Administrative Appeals Office. An appeal is generally resolved by sustaining, dismissing, or remanding the appeal, and the AAO strives to complete its appellate review within 180 days from the time it receives a complete case record, though some cases take longer.
- Withdrawing and refiling with a strengthened record, especially when credentials have grown since the original filing or when the denial reflects a genuine evidentiary problem that cannot be efficiently argued away.
In many cases, the most pragmatic response to a denial is to withdraw, build a stronger record, and refile. New accomplishments accrued since the first filing can be included in a new petition. A motion to reconsider succeeds only when the denial misapplied law or policy based on the record at the time of decision, while a motion to reopen succeeds by stating new facts supported by documentary evidence that demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. Repeating arguments from a weak petition rarely changes the outcome.
Have Your EB-1A Profile Reviewed
How The Final Merits Determination Works
The final merits determination is a qualitative review of the full record, separate from the initial three-criteria threshold. It is not a second mechanical count of criteria. USCIS evaluates whether the record demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and whether the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.
Key points about how the final merits determination operates:
- Meeting three criteria does not guarantee approval. The officer may find multiple criteria satisfied and still conclude the overall record does not establish top-of-field standing.
- In the EB-1A final merits determination, USCIS weighs the totality of the record, considering factors such as independence of recognition, selectivity of awards or roles, national or international reach, impact on the field, continuity of acclaim over time, and credibility of the claims.
- There is no universal exhibit count, citation number, or salary percentile that guarantees approval. In EB-1A extraordinary ability cases, USCIS evaluates the complete record under the governing standard in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The ten regulatory criteria cover different areas, and comparable evidence is permitted where the standards do not readily apply to the petitioner’s occupation.
- The strongest petitions tell a single consistent story. Evidence for individual criteria simultaneously builds the case for the final merits determination. Judging shows the field trusted the petitioner’s expertise, original contributions show what that expertise produced, and published material demonstrates recognition beyond the petitioner’s own network.
Common language in final merits RFEs and denials includes: “The record does not establish that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim” and “The totality of the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.”
Readiness Assessment: Is Your EB-1A Evidence Filing-Ready?
Before filing, petitioners should be able to answer the following questions affirmatively:
- Can you document at least three criteria with objective evidence that shows impact, not just activity?
- Are your expert letters from independent experts who explain the significance of your work instead of merely praising it?
- Are your citations, patents, or salary data documented through recognized sources such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, or BLS Wage Data?
- Do you understand how your evidence will be weighed in the final merits determination, beyond whether it satisfies a criterion on its face?
- Does your evidence tell a coherent story of sustained acclaim over time, instead of presenting achievements as an undifferentiated exhibit list?
Jumpstart Immigration files U.S. visa and green-card petitions for founders, executives, and investors. Its petition methodology uses AI-assisted drafting and review, and it maintains a 98% approval rate across filed cases.
Frequently Asked Questions About EB-1A Evidence Requirements
Are 100 Citations Enough For EB-1A?
Citation counts are evidence that other researchers are engaging with the work, but they are not by themselves evidence of major significance. Under the USCIS Policy Manual (6 USCIS-PM F.2), citation counts are evaluated in context for the original-contributions criterion and the final merits determination. Officers consider citation norms in the specific field and subfield, the career stage at which citations accumulated, the distribution across the body of work, and the nature of the citing works.
A field-normalized comparison such as “95th percentile among computer-vision papers published 2018–2022 by researchers at the same career stage” is far more defensible than a raw number. An expert letter that interprets what the citation profile means in field context is essential, because an adjudicator cannot independently assess whether a given citation count is remarkable or average for a researcher at a specific career stage in a specific discipline. The petitioner must supply comparative, field-normalized statistical evidence.
What Are Common EB-1A Rejection Reasons?
Most EB-1A denials occur at the final merits determination stage, where USCIS concludes that even though the petitioner met three criteria, the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of the field. Common triggers include evidence that documents activity rather than impact, support letters from colleagues or collaborators instead of independent experts, and a fragmented narrative that does not tie achievements into a coherent picture of extraordinary ability. Nominal criteria compliance, where USCIS concedes that an EB-1A petitioner meets multiple regulatory criteria but still denies the petition at the Kazarian Step Two final merits determination for lack of demonstrated top-of-field standing, is a recurring pattern documented in 2025–2026 AAO decisions and practitioner analyses.
What Happens If Your EB-1A Is Denied?
A denial does not prevent future filings or applications for other visa categories and does not affect lawful status that you maintain under another visa. Options include a motion to reopen or reconsider, an appeal to the AAO, or withdrawing and refiling with stronger evidence. The filing mechanics and timelines for each option appear in the detailed section above on post-denial strategy.
What Evidence Proves Original Contributions Of Major Significance?
Evidence of original contributions of major significance shows that the field adopted, cited, extended, or commercialized the work. Relevant items include published materials about the significance of the work, testimonials and letters about the work, documentation of citations at a level indicative of major significance, patents or licenses deriving from the work or evidence of commercial use, and detailed letters from experts explaining the nature and significance of the contribution. A patent or publication standing alone is not sufficient.
Under USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2, the officer first asks whether the person has made original contributions in the field and then asks whether those contributions are of major significance to the field. Expert letters must name the specific contribution, explain its novelty, describe the impact, and situate it relative to peer work instead of simply asserting that the work was “important” or “significant.”
Book A Consultation To Discuss Your EB-1A Evidence Strategy
Building An EB-1A Evidence Strategy That Holds Up
USCIS applies the Kazarian two-step framework, with Step One requiring at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and Step Two requiring a final merits determination of sustained national or international acclaim and top-of-the-field standing, to evaluate EB-1A evidence. USCIS adopted this framework through internal agency guidance, and a recent court decision (Mukherji v. USCIS) held that adoption unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The criteria remain qualitative. The same evidence can satisfy one criterion and fail another depending on how it is documented. Mapping credentials to specific criteria with objective, independently verifiable documentation is essential. The final merits determination is where most petitions ultimately succeed or fail.
Jumpstart Immigration’s petition methodology uses AI-assisted drafting and review. With a 98% approval rate, Jumpstart translates existing credentials into criterion-satisfying evidence for founders, researchers, executives, and investors filing for U.S. visas and green cards.
Book A Consultation With Jumpstart Immigration
