How Does USCIS Evaluate EB-1A Criteria?
USCIS applies a two-step analysis established in the Kazarian case framework. First, adjudicators determine whether you meet at least three of the ten criteria with qualifying evidence. Second, they conduct a final merits determination evaluating whether your overall profile demonstrates extraordinary ability.
Meeting three criteria does not guarantee approval. The USCIS Policy Manual explains that the final merits determination considers the totality of evidence to assess whether you have sustained national or international acclaim and are among the small percentage at the top of your field.
This two-step process means you need both sufficient criteria and overall strength. Marginal evidence across exactly three criteria may pass step one but fail step two. Strong evidence across more criteria supports both steps.
Why Should You Target More Than Three Criteria?
Targeting five or more criteria provides essential buffer. If USCIS finds one criterion insufficiently documented, you still meet the three-criterion threshold. Without this buffer, a single problematic criterion could sink your petition.
More criteria also strengthen your final merits argument. Demonstrating achievements across multiple dimensions shows breadth of recognition. A scientist with awards, publications, judging experience, and original contributions presents a more compelling extraordinary ability case than one with only publications.
Some criteria are inherently stronger than others for the final merits determination. Awards with national recognition and documented original contributions often carry more weight than criteria that could reflect ordinary career progression.
What Are the Ten EB-1A Criteria?
The ten criteria established at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) cover different types of achievement. Awards for excellence, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement, published material about you, judging the work of others, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, artistic exhibitions, leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations, high salary, and commercial success in the performing arts.
Not all criteria apply to all fields. Commercial success in performing arts only applies to artists. Some criteria suit academics, others suit business professionals, and some work across fields.
Assess which criteria match your career. A research scientist might target scholarly articles, original contributions, judging, and high salary. An executive might focus on leading roles, original contributions, media coverage, and high salary.
Which Criteria Are Most Commonly Successful?
Original contributions of major significance is one of the most versatile and commonly successful criteria. Documented innovations, influential work products, or significant field advancements can satisfy this criterion across many professions.
Scholarly articles works well for academics and researchers with publication records. Judging applies to anyone who has reviewed for journals, served on award panels, or evaluated grants. High salary is accessible to well-compensated professionals in many fields.
Leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations applies to executives, key employees, and professionals whose contributions significantly affected their employers. This criterion works across industries when properly documented.
How Do You Evaluate Your Evidence for Each Criterion?
For each potential criterion, ask three questions: Do I have achievements that fit the regulatory language? Can I document those achievements with concrete evidence? Will the evidence be persuasive to someone unfamiliar with my field?
The regulatory language matters precisely. "Awards for excellence" requires actual awards, not just recognition. "Membership" requires organizations with documented outstanding achievement requirements. Carefully match your evidence to specific language.
Documentation must be concrete. Assertions without supporting documents fail. Letters describing your contributions need corroboration through contracts, patents, metrics, or other independent evidence. The USCIS Policy Manual emphasizes that vague assertions are insufficient.
How Do You Prioritize Among Possible Criteria?
Prioritize criteria where you have the strongest documentary evidence, not necessarily your most impressive achievements. An extraordinary accomplishment that cannot be documented helps less than a solid achievement with comprehensive proof.
Consider evidence availability. Media coverage requires actual articles. High salary requires pay documentation and comparative data. Some evidence is easier to obtain than others—factor this into prioritization.
Weight criteria by strength for final merits. Nationally recognized awards and transformative original contributions often carry more weight than criteria that could reflect ordinary professional development. Strong criteria in your portfolio improve final merits outcomes.
How Do You Build Proof for Each Criterion?
Building proof requires assembling multiple types of evidence that together satisfy the criterion. Single documents rarely suffice. Layered evidence—primary documents, explanatory letters, comparative context—creates persuasive packets.
For awards, provide the award documentation, evidence of the award's significance and selectivity, information about past recipients, and context about the recognition within your field.
For original contributions, provide evidence of the contribution itself (patents, publications, product documentation), evidence of its adoption or influence (citations, licensing, implementation), and expert letters explaining significance to the field.
What Role Do Expert Letters Play?
Expert letters provide context that documents alone cannot convey. Letters from recognized experts explaining why your contributions matter, how your achievements compare to peers, and what impact your work has had strengthen evidence packages significantly.
Letters should be specific and detailed. Generic praise helps little. Effective letters describe particular contributions, explain their significance in technical detail, and place them in field context.
Choose letter writers strategically. Independent experts who did not collaborate with you carry more weight than colleagues. Senior figures whose credentials USCIS will respect lend authority to their assessments.
What Common Mistakes Should You Avoid?
Claiming criteria without adequate evidence is a common mistake. Listing achievements that sound impressive but providing thin documentation invites denial. Better to claim fewer criteria with strong evidence than many with weak support.
Misunderstanding regulatory requirements causes problems. "Awards" requires actual awards, not honors or recognition generally. "Membership" requires specific outstanding achievement requirements, not just professional association membership. Read regulatory language precisely.
Neglecting the final merits determination is another error. Meeting three criteria technically but presenting a profile that does not show extraordinary ability results in denial at step two. Build your case with the overall picture in mind.
How Do You Avoid Weak Criterion Claims?
Before including a criterion, honestly assess whether evidence would satisfy a skeptical reviewer. If you have doubts, USCIS likely will too.
Have someone unfamiliar with your field review your evidence. If they cannot understand why your achievements satisfy the criterion, your documentation needs strengthening.
Focus resources on your strongest criteria rather than trying to marginally satisfy every possible criterion. Depth beats breadth when evidence quality varies.
