October 31, 2025
hzahedi@prozco.com
EB-1A is an employment-based immigrant visa category for individuals with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. U.S. law under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) – Evidentiary criteria for EB-1A –, defines this standard as a level of expertise indicating the person is “one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor,” with achievements that have garnered sustained national or international acclaim. In practical terms, the EB-1A petitioner must show a career of exceptional accolades and recognition, documented by extensive evidence. Unlike most other employment-based visas, EB-1A does not require a job offer or employer sponsorship – one can self-petition – but the individual must intend to continue working in the field of their acclaim in the U.S. and show that their work will prospectively benefit the country under USCIS Policy Manual, vol. 6, part F – Extraordinary Ability guidance on two-step analysis and criteria interpretation. This category has a very high bar, reflecting its prestige as a path reserved for those at the pinnacle of their professions.
Based on caselaw in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), to qualify for EB-1A, a petitioner must provide initial evidence either of a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize) or evidence that the person meets at least three out of ten specific criteria listed in the regulations. These ten criteria (detailed below, under Step 1) are designed as indicators of sustained acclaim – e.g. significant awards, media coverage, high salary, etc. If a particular criterion does not readily apply to a petitioner’s occupation, the regulations permit comparable evidence to be submitted in its place. Simply meeting three criteria, however, is a threshold requirement and not in itself sufficient for approval. USCIS uses a two-step adjudicative process (commonly called the Kazarian analysis):
Below, we present a comprehensive guide through each evidentiary criterion (Step 1), followed by guidance on the final merits determination (Step 2). This guide offers plain-language explanations, real-world examples across various fields, insights into how USCIS evaluates each type of evidence, common pitfalls (including interpretations from USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office), and practical tips for persuasive presentation.
To satisfy Step 1, petitioners typically must document at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (unless they have a single major award). Each of these criteria is explained below in plain terms, with examples and guidance. Keep in mind that quality is more important than quantity: one well-documented criterion can be more persuasive than three marginal ones. It’s also not necessary (or often possible) to meet all ten criteria; part of a successful strategy is selecting the strongest three (or more) criteria that fit the person’s career, and focusing on compelling evidence for those. In cases where a standard criterion doesn’t neatly apply to a person’s field, comparable evidence may be used to fill the gap – but this should be done with a clear justification (explained in the Comparable Evidence section below). For each criterion, we discuss what it means, examples of qualifying evidence across science, education, business, athletics, and the arts, what documentation to provide, how USCIS assesses it, and common pitfalls to avoid.
Meaning: This criterion refers to prizes or awards for excellence in the field that, while not as renowned as the likes of a Nobel or an Oscar, are still nationally or internationally recognized honors in the field. In plain terms, the beneficiary should have received honors that are significant within their professional community – more than just local or organizational commendations, but awards that people in the field (nationally or globally) would recognize as prestigious. The award must be for the person’s excellence in their area of endeavor, not just a random prize or a grant for something unrelated. Notably, team awards can count if the person was one of the named recipients. The key is that the award has a bona fide reputation beyond a small circle, indicating that the winner has distinguished themselves among peers. Unlike the one-time major awards (which by themselves can qualify someone for EB-1A), these “lesser” awards typically include things like top prizes at respected national competitions, significant medals or honors bestowed by national professional organizations, etc. They need not be as rare as a Nobel Prize – indeed the regulation explicitly says they need not rise to that level – but they should still be notable in the field.
Examples of acceptable evidence: Provide documentation of the award and its significance. This usually includes the award certificate or an official letter/announcement of the award, along with evidence of the award’s prestige (such as press releases, media articles, or information about the awarding body and past winners). Real-world examples across fields illustrate the range of what can qualify:
How USCIS evaluates it: Officers will verify two main points: (a) that the person actually received the award (seems obvious, but you must show it was awarded to the beneficiary, not just their team or employer); and (b) that the award is indeed a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in the field. The officer will look at the prestige and scope of the award. Key factors include: the criteria and selection process for the award, the size/geographic scope of the candidate pool (an award open to anyone in the country vs. one limited to employees of a company or to residents of one city), and the reputation of the awarding organization. For example, an award given by a well-known national professional association or a government ministry is more likely to be deemed nationally recognized than one given by a local club. Similarly, if only a handful of such awards are given out (e.g. one per year nationwide), it appears more selective than an award that dozens of people receive. USCIS does not require the award to be as famous as those at the Nobel or Oscar level – by definition this criterion covers honors below that tier. However, the award should still be significant: an honor limited to a single company or a small region typically won’t qualify, because it lacks wider recognition. Officers often check if the award received media coverage or if the organization’s stature is discussed in the evidence. They may also consider whether the award was for excellence in the field. An award needs to be based on merit in the field of endeavor; something like a university’s “years of service” plaque or a local community thank-you award, while nice, would not show excellence compared to peers on a national scale. On the other hand, an award can still be nationally recognized even if it targets a subset (like “outstanding young profession award”) so long as it’s widely known in that field. Officers also pay attention to limitations on competitors: if an award was open only to a very restricted group (say, only new Ph.D. graduates in one university), that diminishes its standing – but if evidence shows the award itself is nevertheless known nationally (perhaps because it’s from a top institution or has media profile), it might still pass14. Ultimately, USCIS is looking for evidence that peers in the field, at a national/international level, have judged the person to be the best or among the best (through conferring the award).
Common pitfalls: A frequent mistake is submitting awards that are too local or not actually honors for excellence. For instance, “Employee of the Month at X Corporation” or a regional coaching award in a small league, on their own, carry little weight – they’re not nationally recognized and often are based on limited pools or even just tenure. USCIS often sees petitions listing many minor awards or honors (school-level awards, community recognitions) and will conclude that none of them meet the criterion, because they lack national acclaim. It’s better to provide fewer but more substantial awards, each with an explanation of why it’s important. Another pitfall is failing to prove the significance of the award. Do not assume the officer knows how important your award is. If you won the “XYZ Innovation Award,” include context: e.g. “XYZ Award is given annually by the National Technology Council to one individual chosen from hundreds of nominees across industries.” Include any evidence like a webpage or article that says “XYZ is one of the top honors in our field.” Without that, an officer might think “What is this award? Never heard of it,” and discount it. Additionally, team awards need careful presentation. If the evidence shows the team or a project got an award (say a film won a festival award), make sure to document that the beneficiary is individually named as an award recipient (perhaps a certificate listing them, or rules that credit the director, etc.) – otherwise USCIS might say the person didn’t personally receive the award. Another common issue: scholastic awards. Many academic honors (like college scholarships, dean’s list, etc.) are not at the level of recognition required. USCIS has noted that most purely scholastic awards are not nationally/internationally recognized, unless they’re something like a very prominent fellowship or competition open to candidates nationally. Petitioners sometimes list things like a university thesis prize or a local science fair win – those usually won’t suffice. If an academic award is truly notable (e.g. National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship), explain its selectivity and national scope. Lastly, be cautious not to confuse this criterion with the major one-time achievement: if the award is extremely prestigious worldwide (say, an Olympic gold or Nobel Prize), you might not even need to go through the criteria at all, since that alone could qualify – but those are rare cases. For the vast majority of cases, focus on three or more solid lesser awards or other criteria rather than chasing an elusive major award.
Meaning: This criterion is about membership in professional associations in the field for which classification is sought, where admission to membership is selective and requires outstanding achievements judged by experts. In simpler terms, the person must belong to one or more organizations or societies that you can’t simply join by paying a fee – instead, only top achievers are invited or allowed in, typically after a review of their accomplishments by a panel of judges or current elite members. The association should be in the beneficiary’s field (or a closely related field) and the membership should be recognized as a mark of distinction. For example, think of honorific academies (National Academy of Sciences, etc.), fellow status in professional societies, or invitation-only guilds of leaders in a domain. The rationale is that if your peers have an organization that only admits the best of the best, and you have been admitted, that’s evidence of your outstanding stature. It’s important to note that not all professional memberships count – most professional associations (even if named “Association of National Professionals in X”) have minimal requirements (like having a degree or being employed in the field) or just require dues. Those won’t satisfy this criterion. USCIS is looking for truly selective memberships. Also, the judging of achievements must be done by recognized experts in the field, per the regulation. This usually implies a nomination or reference process and a review committee that vets candidates.
Examples of acceptable evidence: Start by providing proof of membership (membership certificate or letter) and the criteria for membership. The latter is crucial – for each association, include documentation such as the bylaws, membership criteria, or a letter from the organization explaining what it takes to be a member, to show that outstanding achievements are required. Examples across different fields include:
How USCIS evaluates it: Officers will first verify the nature of the association: Is it in the field of the beneficiary’s expertise, and does it indeed require outstanding achievements as a condition of membership? They will expect to see evidence of the requirements for membership – simply stating “Member of XYZ Association” is not enough. They will look for indications that recognized experts judge candidates for that membership. If the membership has multiple levels (for example, regular member vs. Fellow), they will consider whether the level the person holds is the one that corresponds to having achieved excellence. Often, general membership is easy, but a Fellow status is the one that requires outstanding achievements. USCIS will differentiate that: only the higher level might meet the criterion. For example, being a regular member of a national engineering society isn’t special (any professional can join) but being a Fellow of that society after peer nomination is special. They will also consider any evidence that the membership is a mere formality. Red flags for officers include memberships that are based on minimal criteria like education or paying a fee. If, say, the organization’s website shows that anyone with a bachelor’s degree in the field can be a member, or one can join by subscribing to a journal, the officer will conclude it’s not the kind of selective membership this criterion envisages. Similarly, union memberships or guilds that are essentially required for employment (like an actor’s union, or a bar association for lawyers) are not considered evidentiary of extraordinary ability – they are too broad and often mandatory for practitioners. The USCIS Policy Manual gives examples: it notes that if membership is automatic for people with a certain level of education or those in certain jobs, that doesn’t count as “outstanding achievement” criteria. They also look at who judges the membership applications: If the evidence shows a panel of high-profile experts vet each nominee’s accomplishments (great!), versus an administrative committee just checking if forms are complete (not so great). Officers will likely give weight to letters or documentation from the association itself explaining the honor involved. Also, USCIS will verify that the membership is relevant to the field of extraordinary ability. Being in a distinguished association outside your field doesn’t prove you’re top of your field. For example, if a world-class scientist is also in a prestigious fraternal society that isn’t specifically about science, that won’t fulfill this (the association must be connected to the field of endeavor).
Common pitfalls: The most common pitfall is claiming ordinary memberships in professional organizations. Many petitioners list things like “Member of the American Marketing Association” or “Member of the National Society of Professional Engineers” without realizing those memberships are open to essentially anyone in the profession (often just requiring an application and dues). USCIS will not accept those as evidence of outstanding achievement. So one must carefully distinguish honorific memberships. Another pitfall is not providing proof of the selection criteria. Simply providing a membership certificate isn’t sufficient; you need accompanying evidence about how one gets that membership. If you don’t include that, an officer might assume it’s not selective. Likewise, multiple levels of membership confusion: if you say “Member of XYZ Fellowship” but it turns out the person is a general member, not a Fellow, the officer could deny for not meeting the criteria of the outstanding level. Always clarify what level the beneficiary holds and why that level counts. Also beware of inflated or non-industry “associations.” There are some dubious organizations (so-called “vanity associations”) that offer fancy-sounding memberships or listings (e.g. “Who’s Who Among Executives” type listings) that have no real selection criteria except willingness to pay for a plaque. USCIS officers are quite familiar with these and will discount them completely. Including such memberships can even hurt the case’s credibility, as it suggests the petitioner is padding with unimpressive credentials. Another issue: guilds or unions. As mentioned, being part of an actors’ guild, writers’ guild, etc., is usually just a professional necessity and not an accolade – don’t try to use those. If there’s something special about the membership (e.g., “Lifetime Achievement Member” of some guild given only to those who won certain awards), clarify that distinction. Lastly, ensure the association relates to the field of extraordinary ability. If someone has interdisciplinary work, pick associations relevant to their main claim. For instance, if a person is a business expert applying in business, their membership in an honor society for philanthropy might not directly relate, unless they tie it to business achievements. Keep the narrative focused: the association should underscore the person’s prominence in their own field.
Meaning: This criterion focuses on whether the person’s achievements have attracted coverage in professional or major media – in other words, press articles or other published material about the beneficiary’s work in the field. In plain language, has the individual been featured in the news, industry magazines, or other publications of note because of what they have done? It’s not about the person writing something (that’s a different criterion); it’s about independent reporting on them. The regulation specifies that the coverage should be in professional or major trade publications or in other major media, and it must relate to the person’s field and work. The evidence must include the title, date, and author of the material (and usually a copy of the content). Essentially, this is proof of recognition: if reputable media outlets have profiled or extensively quoted the person, or reviewed their work, that indicates the person’s endeavors are noteworthy on a national/international scale.
Examples of acceptable evidence: Copies of the published articles or media transcripts are the core evidence, accompanied by information establishing the outlet’s significance if not obvious. Some examples by field:
How USCIS evaluates it: Officers look at two main aspects: the content of the material, and the stature of the publication/outlet. For content, they verify that the person is the subject or a principal focus of the piece, and that it relates to their work in the field. A mere mention in an article is not sufficient – e.g., being listed in a conference program that got printed in a magazine, or a one-line quote in an otherwise unrelated story, doesn’t meet the criterion. The article doesn’t have to be solely about the person; it could be a broader story (say, about an art festival) but with a substantial discussion of the person’s role or achievements in it. If the person is only briefly cited or part of a group photo caption without detail, that’s too thin. USCIS often distinguishes feature or profile coverage from incidental mentions. They also require the published material to have title, date, author – basically proof it’s a legitimate published piece. For broadcast media, a transcript or official summary showing it aired on a major station is needed.
For the publication’s stature, USCIS assesses whether it’s a “major” media or professional/trade publication. “Major” can mean large circulation or significant influence in the field. Officers may consider factors like circulation numbers, target audience, and reputation. For example, Forbes or New York Times clearly qualify as major media due to wide readership. A niche trade journal can qualify if it’s one of the leading publications in that profession – the regulation explicitly allows professional and trade publications, not just general newspapers. So an article in Journal of Advanced Oncology could count if the beneficiary is a cancer researcher and the journal is respected among oncologists, even though general public hasn’t heard of it. Online outlets: USCIS recognizes them as long as they have significant traffic or are well-regarded (e.g., an article on TechCrunch or Pitchfork could count for tech entrepreneur or musician respectively, since those sites are widely read in their domains). They will likely ignore coverage that is from unknown blogs or self-written pieces (e.g., a blog post the person wrote about themselves, or a tiny blog that’s essentially personal). Also, paid publicity or marketing content disguised as articles are frowned upon. If the officer suspects the “article” is actually a sponsored content or something arranged by the petitioner (for instance, those “press releases” that some businesses pay to get posted on newswire sites), they might discount it, as policy notes that content created for the purpose of selling or promoting the person’s products/services generally isn’t considered independent published material about the person. Officers may also evaluate the geographic reach: national or international reach is implied by “major.” A city newspaper article could count if that paper is major (e.g., LA Times) with broad distribution. But a small-town newspaper article might be considered not “major media” unless shown it’s syndicated or widely read.
In summary, USCIS will ask: Is this evidence showing that independent, notable media have recognized the beneficiary’s work as newsworthy or noteworthy? If yes, criterion met.
Common pitfalls: One common issue is overestimating minor press. Petitioners sometimes include a flurry of small blog posts or local articles, thinking quantity will impress. However, quality trumps quantity here. Five articles in obscure outlets do not equal one solid feature in a well-known outlet. Officers might discount a stack of low-impact clippings. It’s better to highlight a few strong pieces and clearly explain the significance of the publication if it’s not obvious. Another pitfall is failing to provide the actual publication details. The regulation requires title, date, and author to be eviden. Sometimes, petitioners quote an article in a support letter but forget to attach the article itself – that won’t work. Always include the full text or a photocopy/printout of the article with the source information. If the article is not in English, include a certified translation. Additionally, very brief mentions are not enough. For example, if the person’s name appears in an event roundup or a list (like “Dr. X presented at Y Conference” in a newsletter), that’s not substantial published material about them. USCIS has denied cases that lacked any significant press coverage “by or about” the person. So avoid using flimsy evidence like directory listings or one-liners. Another issue: advertorials or paid content. If the only press is something that looks like a neutral article but was actually an advertisement (e.g., a “Who’s Who” listing, or a profile in a magazine that sells profile space), an officer may see through that. It’s safer to leave those out or at least be candid by providing context, because including them might harm credibility. Also, social media or personal website mentions – those don’t count. It has to be an established third-party publication. Lastly, ensure the media relates to the field: if someone has an article about their personal life or side hobby in a magazine, but it doesn’t touch on their professional accomplishments, it won’t help. For instance, a scientist who was featured in a local paper for winning a hometown chess tournament – that’s about chess, not their science acclaim, so it wouldn’t support the case for scientific acclaim. Stick to press that highlights the person’s work in the claimed field of expertise.
Meaning: This criterion is met by showing that the individual has served as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field, either by themselves or as part of a panel. In essence, the person has been called upon to evaluate, critique, or validate the accomplishments of peers – a role typically reserved for recognized experts. Common examples include serving as a reviewer for journal articles, sitting on award or grant selection committees, judging at competitions, or evaluating others in a professional capacity (outside of regular job duties). The idea is that if you are chosen to judge others’ work, it’s evidence that your expertise is respected and you have a certain standing in the field. The engagements can be one-time or recurring, but you must show actual participation, not just an invitation. Note that being an academic advisor or supervisor is not the same as judging others’ work in this context – USCIS is looking for specific evaluative roles where your judgment determines others’ success or status (e.g., deciding who wins an award, gets published, or passes a certain milestone). Also, it should be in the person’s field or a closely allied field – evaluating something unrelated wouldn’t demonstrate acclaim in one’s own field.
Examples of acceptable evidence: Documentation of the judging role is key. This can be letters of invitation/thanks, copies of program brochures listing the person as a judge, emails from journal editors requesting reviews and confirmation of completed reviews, etc. Examples across fields:
How USCIS evaluates it: The officer will confirm two things: (a) the person actually served as a judge of others’ work, and (b) the judging was in the same or allied field as the petition. To satisfy (a), it’s important to show not just an invitation but that the person participated. USCIS often looks for evidence that the review or judging took place – for example, a letter saying “Thank you for completing the review of X” or proof in public records that they were on the judging panel (like their name on a winners press release as a judge). An invitation letter alone might leave doubt, so it’s wise to include proof of actual completion of the task47. For (b), they will consider if the activity is indeed judging others’ work and not something else. For instance, mentoring someone, or supervising your own student, is not considered judging – it should be a more formal evaluative context with respect to peers or external individuals. Also, the field should align: reviewing scientific papers is clearly within a scientist’s field; an engineer judging an art contest would not show acclaim in engineering (that would be outside allied field, and probably not included anyway). Allied field is interpreted sensibly (a computer scientist could review IT grant proposals – that’s allied; but a doctor judging a music contest is not allied).
USCIS will also gauge the significance of the judging role. While the criterion doesn’t explicitly require multiple instances, officers might be more convinced if the person has a pattern of being tapped as a judge. However, even a one-time significant judging role (like being invited by a national agency to review grant proposals) can suffice if well-documented. They will look at context: e.g., reviewing for a high-impact journal or major conference is strong evidence, whereas judging a local science fair for elementary schoolers, while technically judging others’ work, might be seen as less indicative of “extraordinary” acclaim. The regulations don’t specify prestige level here, but implicitly, the more prestigious the judging opportunity, the better it supports the petition. Officers may consider letters from those who invited the person, describing why they were chosen (implying because of their expertise).
Another consideration: if the person was paid or if it was part of their job, does it matter? Generally, if it’s part of one’s routine duties (e.g., a professor must sit on thesis committees for their department’s students – that alone might not be persuasive unless maybe they were external examiner at another institution, indicating broader recognition). But being paid or unpaid doesn’t disqualify – many do peer reviews as service without pay. The key is the role itself being an honor or recognition of expertise.
Common pitfalls: A big pitfall is claiming informal or expected duties as “judging.” For example, a manager might say “I supervise and evaluate my team’s work” – that’s not what this criterion means. It’s not about being a boss or teacher in the ordinary course. USCIS will not count internal performance reviews or mentoring as evidence; it has to be a distinct honor or role where the person’s judgment is sought externally or in a competitive context. Another mistake is lack of proof of actual participation. Sometimes petitioners list “Reviewer for Journal X” but provide no letter or email to prove it. Or they provide an email request to review but no evidence that the review was completed. USCIS specifically notes to check that the person actually judged, not just was invited. So ensure you have at least a thank-you email or something confirming completion. Another common issue: field mismatch or trivial events. Adjudicators might not give weight to judging something very small or unrelated. For instance, if a world-class pianist judged a local youth music recital with 10 entrants, technically they judged others’ work, but it’s not compelling evidence of sustained national acclaim. It might fulfill the literal criterion, but in the final merits stage it could be considered weak. So while it might count for Step 1, be mindful to highlight more significant judging activities if possible. Also, judging in allied fields needs explanation. If the link isn’t obvious, clarify it in the petition letter (e.g., “As a renowned AI researcher, Dr. X was asked to judge a robotics innovation contest – robotics being an allied field to AI; this underscores how her expertise is recognized across related disciplines”).
Another pitfall: using student competitions where the person’s role was more like coaching or mentoring. For example, “judging” might be confused with coaching a debate team or something – that’s not judging others’ work, that’s training. We should only use evidence where the person was in a position of evaluator. Letter wording: sometimes letters say “served as a judge” versus “served as an advisor.” If letters are vague, USCIS might question if it was truly judging. So if possible, obtain documentation that clearly states the person judged or evaluated others’ output.
Finally, petitioners should avoid conflating this criterion with others. For instance, being on an editorial board might also be used to claim “leading role in an organization” (if it’s a distinguished journal). Choose the criterion that fits best and don’t double-dip the exact same evidence for two criteria without clear distinction.
Meaning: This criterion is arguably the most pivotal and often-contested one: it requires evidence that the person has made original contributions in their field that are of major significance. In simpler terms, the individual hasn’t just participated in the field – they have created something new (knowledge, a product, a technique, artwork, etc.) that has significantly influenced or advanced the field. These contributions can be scientific discoveries, innovative technologies, influential artworks or performances, groundbreaking business methods, etc., depending on the field. Original means it’s the person’s own work, not a mere routine task or replication of others’ work. Major significance means the contribution isn’t minor or obscure; it has been recognized as important by peers, as evidenced by its impact (others use it, refer to it, praise it, etc.). Think of this criterion as answering: What has the person done that fundamentally stands out and has been acknowledged as a big deal in their domain?
This criterion often relies on a combination of objective evidence (e.g., citation counts, patents, usage metrics) and subjective evidence (letters from experts attesting to the significance). It’s inherently a qualitative judgment, so the more concrete and corroborated the evidence of impact, the better.
Examples of acceptable evidence: The regulation and USCIS guidance give broad examples, including publications about the work’s significance, patents, and testimonials. A strong approach is to provide multiple forms of evidence showing a contribution and its field-wide impact:
How USCIS evaluates it: Officers break it down into a two-step analysis: Did the person make original contributions? And if so, are those contributions of major significance in the field?. For the first part, they confirm the contributions are indeed attributed to the person and are not just routine work. For example, listing everyday job duties (e.g., “developed software for Company X”) isn’t persuasive unless that software was innovative and impactful. So petitioners must highlight what is distinctive and attributable to the individual. The second part, major significance, is where many petitions falter because it’s not enough that something is original; it must be influential. USCIS will look for tangible indicators of significance. They expect to see that others in the field have acknowledged or utilized the contribution. Evidence like published materials about the work or high citation counts or patents with widespread usage are explicitly mentioned as relevant5053. For instance, if the person has a publication and it’s moderately cited, the officer may question if it’s truly a major contribution—whereas a highly cited paper suggests peers found it very important54. They also consider letters, but they weigh them more heavily if backed by specifics and if the authors of those letters are themselves qualified to assess significance (recognized experts). A detailed letter explaining why the contribution is significant and how it affected the field carries more weight than a generic praise letter5661. Also, officers are wary of self-serving claims. So if we claim “X’s technique is widely used,” it helps to have evidence like “here are 5 independent sources (articles, patents, expert letters) confirming others use it.”
Another factor: Comparative context. USCIS may consider the field’s norms: in some fields, having, say, 20 citations might be a lot (if it’s highly specialized), in others (like biomedical sciences) 20 is negligible. So providing context via expert letters or data (like mention the average citation count in the subfield and how the person’s work is much higher) can assist. Or if only few people do that specialty, showing that the person’s work is the one everyone references.
Also, major significance doesn’t necessarily mean affecting the entire broad field if the field is huge; it can be within a niche, but it should be a significant niche. However, officers have sometimes misconstrued “major significance” to demand almost field-wide influence. For example, there have been RFEs quoting that contributions must have “influence on the field as a whole” – which is a high bar and not strictly in the regulation. In practice, contributions that solve a long-standing problem, or introduce a new technique adopted by multiple groups, or change how people approach something, should qualify, even if not every single person in the broad field knows about it. It’s helpful to articulate in the petition how broad the impact is (e.g., “used by researchers in at least 10 countries” or “cited by leaders in sub-discipline X, which is a critical branch of the field”).
Common pitfalls: The biggest pitfall is lack of evidence of impact. Many petitioners provide a list of things they did (e.g., published papers, developed products) and assume that the contribution is self-evidently significant. But if you don’t show how others responded to or used those contributions, USCIS may say “record fails to demonstrate major significance.” For example, just having patents isn’t enough – a patent sitting on a shelf that no one has licensed or built upon isn’t proof of major impact63. Similarly, publishing articles or even getting grants, by itself, doesn’t prove the work changed the field (the work could still be largely unnoticed). So a common RFE is: “The evidence does not show that these contributions rise to the level of major significance – provide proof that your work has provoked widespread commentary, high citations, or been widely implemented.” To preempt that, include such proof initially if possible. Another pitfall: letters that are too generic. Letters from colleagues or mentors saying “I think Dr. A’s work is significant” without explanation or specifics are not very persuasive. Officers often dismiss letters that just use superlatives but don’t cite concrete examples of how the work was used or recognized. Make sure letters state what the contribution was and what changed because of it. Also, letters should ideally come from independent experts, not just close collaborators or personal friends, to show an objective view (USCIS will consider the relationship; letters solely from those with a stake in the beneficiary’s success can be seen as less objective).
Another issue: misidentifying what counts as a contribution. For instance, “led a project that built XYZ product” – the product might be a contribution if it’s innovative, but if it was a team effort, clarify the individual’s role in the innovation. If it’s not clear the person was key to the original aspects, USCIS might not credit it as their personal contribution. Ensure the narrative and letters highlight the person’s individual inventive or creative input.
Additionally, some officers mistakenly conflate this criterion with needing press or awards. While those can help evidence significance, they’re not strictly required by the criterion. But lack of any third-party recognition (press, citations, adoption by others) will make it hard to argue major significance. Think of it this way: if a contribution is truly significant, the field usually reacts – we need to capture those reactions in evidence.
Finally, be mindful not to double-count the same evidence under this criterion and others without differentiation. For example, a highly cited paper might be used here to show contribution significance (due to citations), and also used in the authorship criterion. That’s okay if it’s doing different work for each criterion – but if you do that, you should still have other evidence too, and note in the cover letter that, e.g., “the paper is presented under authorship criterion; its citation impact is discussed under contributions criterion.” Avoid the impression that you think one item alone ticks all boxes (officers are cautious about using one piece of evidence to fulfill multiple criteria unless clearly justified).
Meaning: This criterion is met by providing evidence that the person has authored scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media6566. In short, the individual has written articles (or research papers, or possibly books/book chapters in some cases) that have been published in venues aimed at an audience of experts or professionals in the field. “Scholarly” typically implies a certain level of rigor: in academic fields, this means peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings; in other fields, it means writing intended for learned persons (for example, an architecture critic writing in a leading design magazine could be considered a scholarly article if it’s analytical and for a professional readership). The publication must be a professional journal, major trade publication, or similarly reputable outlet – self-published blogs or vanity websites don’t count. Importantly, this criterion is solely about the act of authorship and publication itself, not about the reaction to the article (like citations). That said, the fact an article was accepted in a major journal often implies some degree of peer recognition, but USCIS should not demand proof of impact at this stage (impact comes into play in contributions or final merits). The focus here is on demonstrating that the person has contributed knowledge or expertise in writing and that it was deemed worthy of publication in respected outlets.
Examples of acceptable evidence: Copies of the published articles (or at least the first page and reference details) should be provided. Additionally, any info to establish the publication as professional/major is helpful, especially if it’s not a widely known name. Examples:
How USCIS evaluates it: This is usually a straightforward yes/no determination: has the person authored scholarly articles in the field, and were they published in qualifying outlets?. Officers will verify authorship (name matches the beneficiary) and that the publication meets the “professional or major trade or other major media” threshold67. They often consider whether the outlet is intended for an audience of professionals/academics (e.g., a peer-reviewed journal or a trade magazine). The USCIS policy guidance defines a scholarly article in academia as one with research content, often peer-reviewed, with bibliographies, etc. For other fields, it notes it should be written for “learned persons” – meaning it’s not a general interest fluff piece but something that contributes knowledge to those in the field66. Officers might check if the person is the main author or co-author, but being a co-author still counts. There’s no requirement on number of articles, but obviously at least one is needed; multiple strengthen the case.
One important thing: Kazarian case taught that USCIS should not require evidence of the article’s impact at this stage. They should “essentially accept” the article if it meets the criterion’s plain language. In the past, AAO had tried to say “publishing is expected, so we consider citations/reaction too,” but that was deemed improper at Step 1. Now, they might still loosely consider quality (like a predatory journal vs. top journal), but if it objectively is a professional publication, they should count it. So an officer will likely consider: is the publication significant enough to be called major or professional? For example, an obscure, non-peer-reviewed online journal that publishes anyone might not be considered a major trade publication. They might look at the audience and distribution: if it’s a highly specialized but respected journal, that’s fine. If it’s a random self-publishing platform, not fine.
They also verify content is related to the field of endeavor. If a physics PhD wrote a couple of travel blog articles in a magazine, that doesn’t count – it has to be about physics or something in their field.
Common pitfalls: The main pitfall is not providing evidence of the publication or its details. Merely listing articles in a CV without copies or at least citations might lead the officer to question if they exist or qualify. It’s advisable to provide copies or at least the first page that shows the title, author, journal name, date. Another issue is claiming things that aren’t truly scholarly: e.g., including a casual blog post or an internal company newsletter article the person wrote. Those usually won’t meet “major trade or professional publication” standard. USCIS could RFE saying “the petitioner submitted a copy of a blog entry; however, a personal blog is not a major media publication.” So choose publications that have editorial standards and a known audience.
Predatory journals: In academia, there are many dubious journals that will publish anything for a fee. If an officer recognizes a listed publication as one of those, they might be skeptical. It’s not explicitly disallowed, but it weakens credibility. It’s better to showcase reputable journals (with impact factors or association with known publishers).
Another pitfall is an officer conflating this criterion with needing evidence of acclaim for the articles (like citations). Sometimes RFEs mistakenly ask for citation indices for the authorship criterion – that’s not required for meeting it, though such evidence can be used under contributions or final merits. If we preempt by citing Kazarian: the presence of the article itself is enough for this criterion; impact is separate. We don’t need to mention that in the petition unless needed, but be aware.
Also, if the person has mostly collaborative publications where they are not first or last author, USCIS doesn’t actually require first authorship – any authorship counts. But an officer might casually think more weight if the person was the lead author. In case of heavy collaboration, perhaps a letter can clarify the person’s contributions to those publications to reaffirm they are indeed their scholarly work (especially if their name is one in a list of 10 authors).
Finally, sometimes petitioners misunderstand “other major media” and try to count media interviews where they spoke (which actually is press about them, not authored by them – that fits criterion 3, not 6). Authorship criterion is about things the person wrote. So ensure the evidence is actually written by the person. If a ghostwriter wrote it but the person is credited, it’s still okay if it’s officially their article, but hopefully that’s not an issue.
In summary, the authorship criterion is usually one of the more clear-cut ones if the person has an academic or writing background. If the person doesn’t write in their field (like many practitioners don’t publish), it may not apply and one can skip it or present comparable evidence if applicable (though comparable isn’t usually needed just to skip one criterion).
Meaning: This criterion applies primarily to those in the arts (visual arts, photography, sculpture, perhaps fashion, etc.), and it requires evidence that the person’s work has been displayed in exhibitions or showcases of an artistic nature. In simple terms, if the person is an artist or has a creative body of work, has it been publicly shown in venues that are themselves recognized as artistic exhibitions? The regulation specifically uses the term “artistic exhibitions or showcases,” which implies we are talking about art galleries, museums, art festivals, or similar venues aimed at presenting art to the public or industry. The USCIS guidance clarifies that the exhibitions must be artistic in nature, not just any public display. So, for example, a scientist presenting a poster at a conference is a “display” of work but not an artistic exhibition – that would not count unless argued as comparable evidence for another criterion. Also, it must be the person’s work product being displayed75. For visual artists, it’s straightforward (their paintings, sculptures, etc. on display). For performing artists, it’s a bit less direct because a performance itself is not a static “display,” but if, say, a dancer’s choreography is showcased at a dance festival, one could argue that’s a form of artistic showcase. Typically though, performing artists use other criteria (like leading roles or critical roles). This criterion often covers visual artists, photographers, designers, etc.
Examples of acceptable evidence: Documentation of the exhibitions/showcases, such as exhibition catalogs, programs, press releases, or media coverage naming the person and venue, is key. Examples by domain:
In summary, any evidence that the person’s creative output was publicly presented in a manner indicating artistic recognition can be applied here.
How USCIS evaluates it: Officers will check: (a) is the work displayed actually the person’s own work product?75 (For example, if someone curated an exhibit of others’ work, that doesn’t count for them – it has to be their art on display.) (b) were the venues artistic exhibitions or showcases?76 The policy notes that non-artistic exhibitions don’t count under this criterion (like trade shows or science fairs would not count here)77. So USCIS will look at the context: an art gallery show is obviously artistic; displaying engineering prototypes at a tech expo is not (that might be comparable evidence for another criterion instead, but not here). If the field is outside fine arts, USCIS might be strict. They explicitly said in policy: only artistic exhibitions qualify, any other kind of exhibition must be handled as comparable evidence if relevant. So if the petitioner is not an artist, one probably shouldn’t try to use this criterion directly (rather, consider comparable evidence).
They will also consider the distinction of the venue to some degree, although the plain criterion language doesn’t demand that the exhibition be prestigious (just that it’s an artistic exhibition). But practically, being shown in a top gallery or museum is stronger evidence than a local cafe. If someone only has very small local exhibits, an officer might question if that shows national acclaim. But technically, if it’s a gallery exhibition, it meets the criterion. Quality vs quantity might come into final merits though.
Also, USCIS will verify timing – the wording “display of the person’s work at artistic exhibitions or showcases” doesn’t explicitly require sustained or multiple exhibitions, but multiple instances show a trend of recognition. One exhibition might suffice for Step 1, but if it was, say, a minor one 10 years ago, and nothing since, the officer might doubt sustained acclaim at Step 2. However, for Step 1, they should count it if evidence is there.
Another detail: the evidence should show it was a formal exhibition (advertised, curated, etc.), not just that the person hung their art in the lobby of an office building or put up a website gallery. It needs to be an actual event or venue recognized as an artistic show.
Common pitfalls: A common mistake is using non-artistic displays or unclear contexts. For example, listing “presented research at a conference” under this criterion – that’s not what it’s for (that scenario is often attempted by scientists who think any display means poster sessions; USCIS would likely RFE or deny that saying it’s not an artistic exhibition). Another pitfall is lack of proof linking the person to the exhibition. You should have something official that names the person (e.g., exhibition catalog listing all artists and their works, with the person’s name included; or a news article "Gallery X features John Doe’s sculptures"). If you only provide photos of artwork in a gallery without identification, that’s not helpful. Make sure documentation explicitly ties the person to the exhibit.
Also, venue obscurity: If the exhibition was at, say, “Joe’s Coffee Shop Gallery” – not really known – an officer might argue it’s not a major showcase. The criterion doesn’t say “distinguished exhibitions” (unlike O-1B’s event criterion which requires distinguished reputation). So even a smaller gallery should technically count, but again final merits might weigh it. However, to avoid doubts, one could include proof that the gallery is recognized in the art community or that the exhibition was competitive (like “juried exhibition of emerging artists from across the state”). Without context, an officer might think it’s just a casual display. So provide any supporting info like “This exhibition was part of the annual Art League competition with 500 entrants, held at the City Art Museum.”
Another issue: Counting performances incorrectly. For example, a musician might say “performed at Carnegie Hall, which is a showcase” – but USCIS might say performing is not the same as exhibiting a work of art. This can be debated, but performing at a venue could be seen as a live showcase of their art. Usually, though, one would capture that under “leading roles in distinguished events” if it were O-1B, or in EB-1A context maybe use it to demonstrate acclaim via media or critical role. I'd caution using performance venues as evidence for this criterion unless you frame it clearly as an artistic showcase (like a composer’s new composition was showcased in a special concert series highlighting contemporary composers, which could be akin to an exhibition of compositions).
Comparable evidence note: If someone’s field doesn’t have exhibitions, the regulations allow comparable evidence. For instance, a top engineer might say “patents showcased at major tech expos, which is comparable to artistic exhibitions” in a comparable evidence argument. But directly for this criterion, they wouldn’t normally attempt it.
Finally, ensure the evidence spans enough or is current. If all exhibitions were many years ago, an officer might question sustained acclaim (though that’s Step 2, not Step 1).
Meaning: This criterion entails showing that the person has played a leading (key, principal) or critical (essential, vital) role for organizations or establishments that themselves have a distinguished reputation in the field. In other words, the beneficiary wasn’t just a member of a great organization, they were instrumental or prominent in it – either in a leadership capacity (like director, principal investigator, CEO, lead designer) or in a capacity where their contributions were crucial to the success of that organization’s activities. The organization or establishment must be well-regarded in the field (e.g., a top company, a renowned research institution, an elite arts ensemble). Evidence can be in the form of letters and documentation about both the person’s role and the organization’s prestige.
Think of it as a two-prong: prove the organization is distinguished, and prove the person’s role was leading/critical to it. A leading role generally means a high-level position with significant responsibility and visibility (e.g., head of a division, principal dancer, project lead, etc.). A critical role could be a lower title but where the person’s work was indispensable – for instance, a software architect whose work was pivotal for a flagship product, even if title isn’t VP, they could be critical83. The distinction is, you don’t have to have an impressive title if you can show via evidence that what you did for the org was of major importance.
Examples of acceptable evidence: Letters from executives or officials of the organization, press releases, organizational charts, or media articles highlighting the person’s role. Also any awards or internal memos crediting them. Examples across fields:
How USCIS evaluates it: Officers will confirm the role (title and duties) and the organization’s reputation8990. For the role: if it’s a leading role, often a title conveys that (CEO, Director, Principal, Lead, etc.). They will see if duties match the claim of leadership (a letter or job description can help). If it’s a critical role without a big title, they need evidence of how the person’s contributions were crucial83. Letters are very useful here, explaining “but for this person’s work, X wouldn’t have succeeded.” USCIS tends to rely on letters plus any corroborating evidence (like if an article says “the success of project Z is largely credited to engineer A’s innovative design,” that’s great evidence of critical role). They even mention that supporting letters can be particularly helpful for this criterion, if detailed92. However, they caution that letters should come from people in a position to know and must detail how the role was leading or critical.
For the organization’s distinguished reputation: USCIS looks at factors like scale, renown, rankings, media coverage, awards9084. They explicitly note size or longevity alone isn’t determinative (a long-standing org isn’t automatically distinguished just by age), but things like national rankings (for academic departments), big grants, or large customer base, or media recognition can show it. For companies, evidence of market leadership or substantial funding can demonstrate reputation85. For arts organizations, mention national or international acclaim (like “the orchestra has toured internationally and won awards”). The petitioner should ideally include materials or descriptions: e.g., a printout showing the company on Fortune 500, or a news snippet calling the theatre “one of the country’s leading repertory companies.”
They will verify the connection: the person had the role at the time or in the time frame relevant. Past roles count too (e.g., if they were head of research at IBM 5 years ago, it still counts as having performed in a leading role).
Importantly, try not to double-count the exact same event in event criteria and org criteria. But in EB-1A we don’t have a separate event criterion, so no worry about that here (that was an O-1B concern).
Common pitfalls: A major pitfall is insufficient evidence about the organization’s prestige. Petitioners often assume USCIS knows a company or institution is distinguished. While sometimes obvious (NASA, Google, etc.), if it’s not a household name, you should provide context. If you just say “Director at ABC Institute” and USCIS hasn’t heard of it, they might not give credit unless you show why ABC Institute is highly regarded. So include evidence or at least an explanation in letters (“ABC Institute is one of the nation’s top think tanks, ranked by XYZ survey in top 5”). Another is overstating a role. Sometimes someone might have a mid-level title at a good company and they try to sell it as a critical role without evidence. For example, “Senior Analyst at Goldman Sachs – critical role.” USCIS will likely say that title doesn’t inherently sound leading, and if no evidence of specific critical contribution, they’ll reject it. So avoid trying to fit this criterion if the role was ordinary or the company isn’t actually distinguished.
Generic letters are also a risk. If a letter from a supervisor just lists duties and calls them valuable without explaining significance, an officer might not be convinced. The letter should say something like “In our highly regarded organization (with 50 million users / $2B revenue / multiple awards), Mr. Z was our Director of Product. In this leading role, he managed the launch of our flagship product that won industry accolades and drove our company’s growth. His vision was integral – in fact, our CEO publicly credited him in press releases as the ‘architect’ of the product. His contributions were central to our success.” That hits both prongs. Letters lacking that detail may lead to an RFE asking for more proof of the role’s significance.
Another mistake: counting being part of a distinguished org but with no evidence of being one of the leaders or key contributors. For instance, being a software engineer at Google – Google is distinguished, but there are thousands of engineers; you need to show if you were critical (e.g., “one of 5 tech leads on Gmail redesign”). Without that, USCIS may say just working there isn’t enough. They specifically train officers to avoid equating employment at a famous company with eligibility unless the person’s impact is shown.
Additionally, watch out for double use of same evidence: if you used an award an organization got under “awards” criterion, don’t reuse that award again here to say you had a critical role in that award unless you clarify. Actually, you can mention it to show the org’s success you contributed to, but ensure clarity to avoid looking like you’re just repeating evidence.
One more thing: sometimes petitioners confuse this with membership criterion – they’ll list “Member of distinguished organization.” But membership isn’t enough; you have to have role. That’s a separate criterion (the membership one we already covered). Here it’s about what you did for the org.
Meaning: This criterion requires showing that the person has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for their services, relative to others in the field9596. In essence, if the individual is paid significantly more than the norm for their occupation/geography, that indicates they are valued at an extraordinary level (the market has deemed them outstanding enough to pay a premium). “Other remuneration” can include bonuses, royalties, profit share, or other forms of compensation beyond base salary. The comparison is key: it’s high in relation to others in the field. So context matters – e.g., $100,000 might be high for a scholar in academia but low for a top executive in finance. The evidence usually includes pay records plus some benchmark data (like wage surveys or industry averages).
Examples of acceptable evidence: Documentation of earnings (pay stubs, contracts, tax returns) and comparative data (salary surveys, letters from employers about pay percentile, etc.). Examples:
How USCIS evaluates it: They will first verify the actual amount and form of remuneration. So having clear evidence of salary is important – e.g., official pay statements or contract. They explicitly note that it can be past salary or prospective salary from a contract/offer (so if someone has a high-paying job offer, that counts as “has commanded,” not that they must have already earned it). Then, crucially, they consider comparison: is it high relative to others? They expect evidence like surveys or data. The USCIS policy suggests using sources such as Bureau of Labor Statistics or industry surveys, appropriate to geography and job. They caution about using unreliable data (like user-reported salary websites can be iffy). They also mention considering currency and location: if the work was outside the US, you should compare to local standards, not just convert to USD and compare to US salaries. So an officer will likely check: did the petitioner provide a valid baseline to show that the salary is indeed top-tier? They will also consider specifics: e.g., if the person is a film director, you compare to others in film directing, not to the average worker in general. Or if an area has high cost of living, they consider that (though if you provide relative data, that covers it). They also note to consider if it’s hourly vs annual and differences in pay structure (like artists paid per project vs salary). The policy even gives nuance like an artist might have day rates, but you can annualize or present accordingly.
USCIS may also see if the evidence is for the right field – e.g., if the person pivoted field, ensure the high pay is in the field of acclaim. If a doctor turned novelist, his high doctor salary doesn’t prove he’s a top novelist. The salary should be related to the field of endeavor for EB-1A.
For “other remuneration,” if used, they’ll want to see it’s quantifiable and significant (e.g., stock options valued at X or prize money, etc.).
Common pitfalls: One pitfall is lack of comparative evidence. Petitioners sometimes just submit pay stubs showing they earn $120k and assume USCIS knows it’s high. Without context, an officer can’t determine if $120k is extraordinary or just above average. Always include some comparison (published data, or at least an expert letter citing data). Another is using irrelevant comparisons. For example, comparing to national median wage for all jobs (of course a specialized professional makes more than average across all fields – that doesn’t prove they are top of their field). The comparison should be within the field and ideally in the same country or region. If data is scarce, an expert letter can fill in but should explain basis.
Also, faulty data: citing a random website or outdated figures could be questioned. It’s better to use authoritative sources (government or major industry surveys). If using a niche field, maybe use professional associations or recruiting firm reports. USCIS mentions avoiding user-reported salary sites unless they have enough data to be credible.
Another pitfall is focusing on gross income not specific pay. If someone has multiple income streams, they might sum them up, but USCIS might want evidence of remuneration from one’s work in field. If the person owns a company, drawing profits, that counts but need to show it’s from their services. Or if they got a one-time large payment, clarify it’s for their work.
Currency conversion issues: People often convert foreign salary to USD to claim it’s high. But if cost of living is lower, an officer might not buy it. It’s better to show it’s high in that local context. E.g., “He earned 300,000 rupees per month; according to Indian IT industry survey, the average in India for similar role is 100,000 rupees, making him in top bracket.” Don’t just say “300k rupees equals $X which is high by US standards” – USCIS explicitly says to compare within local context.
Time period: If salary was high a long time ago but not now, that could be an issue for final merits, but for Step 1 it still counts as evidence you have commanded a high salary (past or present should count). However, if it’s quite old, they might wonder if it’s current. Generally, using recent evidence is better.
Entrepreneurs: They might pay themselves low salary but own valuable equity. The policy says you can consider equity if salary criterion doesn’t apply well. So one might either argue comparable evidence or try to shoehorn it here by saying “has commanded high remuneration in form of equity/ownership now valued at X.” That needs solid substantiation (e.g., venture valuation documents). Without that, just saying “owns 50% of a startup now worth $5M” might not be straightforward to an officer, but if credible, it can support this criterion or at least comparable evidence.
Finally, make sure not to confuse currency decimals (sometimes conversions or use of comma vs dot can cause misunderstanding, ensure clarity).
Meaning: This criterion is specific to those in the performing arts (actors, musicians, singers, etc.) and it looks for evidence of commercial successes as shown by metrics like box office receipts, record or media sales. Essentially, if the person’s artistic work has generated significant revenue or sales figures, that indicates they have achieved popular success at a high level. This is somewhat analogous to “financial success as a performer,” showing the public actually paid for the art in great numbers. Typical examples: a musician’s album going gold/platinum, a lead actor’s film grossing a huge amount, a performer’s concert tour being sold-out with high grosses. It’s evidence of widespread acclaim in a commercial sense.
This criterion doesn’t apply to non-performing fields directly (though a visual artist’s sales could be considered under high salary or comparable, not here), it’s mainly for performing artists. If not applicable, others can skip it or try comparable if needed (but likely not, as each field has analogues like awards etc).
Examples of acceptable evidence: Sales reports, certifications, or published box office data. For a musician/singer: RIAA certifications (Gold/Platinum records), Billboard sales charts, or streaming numbers if translated into something comparable (though streaming isn’t explicitly in reg, one might include it to show commercial reach). Also, digital sales, number of downloads if exceptionally high. For example, “Album X sold 500,000 copies (Gold record) – here’s the RIAA certificate or a Billboard chart excerpt showing it hit #1.” Or a letter from the record label with sales figures. Actor/Film Director: box office gross of films or shows they starred in or directed. For instance, “The film starring Ms. A grossed $100 million worldwide, putting it in the top films of the year – attached is a Box Office Mojo report with that figure.” Or if it’s TV, maybe high ratings (though ratings aren’t “receipts or sales,” they reflect popularity but not sales – so better to stick to revenue metrics like syndication value, etc., if available). For theater performers: maybe Broadway box office if they were lead in a Broadway show that had record ticket sales. Or if they released a performance DVD that sold well. For dancers/choreographers: this one’s tricky, since usually dance doesn’t have “sales” figures except ticket sales, which are rarely publicly tallied. But if a dance company production featuring them had notably high box office, you could supply that (like a news article “Swan Lake sells out 30 shows, grossing $X, a new record for the ballet company.” If that is tied to the dancer being the star, you can use it). Authors? – writing is not performing art, so book sales wouldn’t count here (they might try to use comparable evidence if needed, but usually authors do EB-1A under contributions and media, not this).
TV personalities: If not exactly performing art, might not count unless we treat them as performing. For a TV show, you could present high viewership or syndication deals – but the reg specifically says receipts or sales, not viewership. That suggests economic success measures.
How USCIS evaluates it: They look for objective numbers showing significant sales/earnings from the person’s artistic work. Importantly, the reg emphasizes “as shown by” those receipts or sales – implying you need documentation of those numbers. An officer will see if the evidence clearly ties the numbers to the individual’s work. For example, if claiming album sales, is the album clearly by the beneficiary? If a band, was the beneficiary a principal of that band? (Yes if lead singer/guitarist, etc., or if petition is for the band’s frontman). If a film gross, did the beneficiary have a major role in it (lead actor or director)? If they were just a small part, then the success is not fully attributable to them – but the criterion doesn’t explicitly say it must be solely due to them, just that they have had commercial successes. Usually, though, you’d highlight it for starring roles.
USCIS will also consider whether the sales are truly noteworthy relative to typical success in that field. The wording implies significant commercial success – selling a few thousand records isn’t extraordinary. If we have actual RIAA certifications or box office records, those are compelling. They will likely accept an official certificate or published chart as evidence.
They won’t count anecdotal or minor evidence (like local album sales of 1,000). It should be “hit” level ideally. A known threshold: RIAA gold (500k US units) or for movies, at least major nationwide release success. If it’s not obvious, an explanation might be needed: e.g., “In country X, a platinum record is 20k units; her album sold 50k, making it platinum twice over.” Provide that context if international.
The policy notes: just having produced content isn’t enough, it’s about volume of sales and receipts showing success relative to others. They specifically say performing in things or releasing things isn’t enough by itself – you must show the level of sales that reflect success.
They might compare to typical sales: e.g., if an indie film makes $1M, that might not be “commercial success” if typical blockbusters make $100M. So consider including if applicable: e.g., “highest grossing documentary of the year,” etc.
Common pitfalls: Not providing actual figures or proof is one – e.g., saying “the show was very successful” without numbers. Or providing partial evidence like a Wikipedia entry listing box office (which might be okay but better to use a more official source or mainstream news). Another pitfall: Claiming success for projects where the person’s contribution was not central. If an actor had a minor role in a blockbuster, that movie’s success isn’t really evidence of their acclaim. USCIS might disregard it if the beneficiary wasn’t a lead. It’s better to use examples where the person had a starring/leading contribution. For musicians, use albums where they are the main artist, not just a session musician on someone else’s platinum album.
Also, mixing up media of success: like listing YouTube views or social media followers under this – those aren’t receipts or sales. Some try to say “my song got 10 million streams on Spotify.” Streams can be monetized, but convert that to something like equivalent sales or mention if it charted (Billboard now counts streams into chart positions which reflect commercial popularity). If using streams, at least tie it to revenue (like it earned a certain amount in royalties or qualifies as gold by new metrics).
Outdated success: If their last hit was a decade ago and nothing since, it might count for Step 1, but in final merits, sustained acclaim might be questioned. But purely for criterion, if it happened, it counts.
Another pitfall: lack of context for foreign markets. If an artist is from a country where sales numbers that define a hit differ, provide those definitions. For example, a song might have gone platinum in a smaller country with 50k sales because population is less. Show that with evidence from that country’s recording industry association.
Finally, double-check that the evidence clearly attributes to beneficiary’s work. If citing a film’s gross, ideally include evidence of the person’s role in that film (like their name on the poster or credit list, but that can be cross-referenced with press in other sections or a quick note). USCIS likely will know if you mention “lead actor in film X which grossed Y.”
It’s relatively straightforward if you have quantifiable successes; the main challenge is gathering that data and presenting it convincingly.
What it is: Comparable evidence is a provision that allows petitioners to submit evidence that isn’t listed in the ten criteria if they can show that the standard criteria don’t readily apply to their occupation. In other words, if someone is in a field or has a type of achievement that the ten criteria don’t capture well, they can present alternate evidence of acclaim, as long as it’s of a similar caliber to what a criterion would demonstrate. It’s a flexibility clause to account for unusual careers or emerging fields where the usual markers of acclaim (like awards, press, etc.) might not be present in the traditional way.
It’s important to note that comparable evidence is not an extra criterion. You don’t get to count an 11th criterion. Instead, you use it to substitute for one of the three (or more) criteria if one of the listed ones really doesn’t fit. You must specify which criterion is being replaced and why it’s not applicable. And the evidence you provide should be comparable in significance to what that criterion is meant to show.
How it’s used: Only invoke comparable evidence if genuinely necessary. USCIS expects you to use the standard criteria if they reasonably apply. Comparable evidence is meant for cases where the nature of the field or the person’s pathway is such that, for example, they couldn’t have “prizes” or “membership” in the usual sense, but they have other hallmarks of greatness. When using it, explicitly state in the petition: “Criterion X does not readily apply to this occupation because… Therefore, we submit Y as comparable evidence of the same level of acclaim.”. Without that explanation, officers may ignore the extra evidence, thinking you’re just adding fluff.
Examples of when to use comparable evidence might include: - Digital Content Creators/Influencers: They may not have traditional awards or press, but they have millions of followers or viral impact. So instead of “major media coverage,” one could present social media metrics (e.g., “20 million YouTube subscribers and 100 million views”) as comparable evidence of national/international recognition. One would argue these figures show widespread acclaim analogous to significant press coverage. - Niche Fields (e.g., Choreographers in specialized dance forms): If “commercial success” doesn’t apply (their performances are more experimental, not box office hits), but say they have prestigious residencies or fellowships that are extremely selective, one could use that as comparable evidence of acclaim (perhaps in place of an award). For instance, “Invited as 1 of 5 choreographers worldwide for a year-long residency at famous dance lab” – that could be comparable to an award/honor. - Artists in fields without press or exhibitions in the usual sense: Suppose a multimedia artist primarily showcases work online or in immersive installations that don’t get classic “reviews.” If criterion 3 (press) isn’t readily applicable, one might use viral engagement or critical acclaim via online platforms as comparable evidence of recognition (with data on views, shares, expert blogs). - Professions like Chefs: There’s no “performing arts commercial success” criterion for chefs, but if one were applying, they might use Michelin stars or restaurant revenue as evidence analogous to an award or commercial success. (Actually, awards like Michelin could fit under prizes, but revenue could be comparable evidence of success). - Entrepreneurs: As mentioned, a startup founder might not have a high salary, but if their company’s valuation or funding is huge, that can be comparable to high remuneration. For example, “Didn’t draw salary, but owns 30% of a startup valued at $50M – a form of remuneration demonstrating top-tier success, comparable to commanding a high salary”. - Academics in emerging fields: Maybe an academic in a very interdisciplinary new field doesn’t have associations or awards yet in that niche. But if they can show e.g., selection to an elite research consortium or invitations to exclusive conferences as keynote speaker, that could be comparable to membership or judging criteria.
Examples of comparable evidence: - Example 1 (Digital Content Creator): A YouTuber with an enormous following might lack traditional awards. They could present evidence like being the most-subscribed creator in their country, trending on global platforms, and data from a social media analytics firm showing millions of engagements. This can be argued as comparable to national/international recognition (since their reach and impact is effectively global publicity). - Example 2 (Choreographer in niche field): They might never get a “Best Choreographer” award because none exists for their style. But say they were one of five artists invited to an exclusive global dance program – that invitation (with only a handful selected worldwide, by renowned experts) can be comparable to an award or membership in elite group. - Example 3 (Industrial Designer): Perhaps they don’t do exhibitions as “art” but if their designs were acquired by a top museum’s collection, that’s a big deal in design. One could say, “Having work acquired by MoMA’s collection is comparable evidence of distinction, since traditional press or box office don’t apply”. - Example 4 (Virtual Reality Performance Artist): A VR performer might straddle tech and art and not fit into standard categories. They could combine evidence like tech awards at festivals and prestigious artist residencies to show acclaim. Argue that these show recognition at a level analogous to mainstream awards/press.
How USCIS evaluates comparable evidence: First, they check if you adequately explained why a standard criterion doesn’t apply. “Not readily applicable” means it’s not easy or customary in that field to have that type of achievement. It doesn’t have to be impossible, just impractical or irrelevant. If you just say “I don’t have that, so here’s something else” without justification, they likely won’t accept it. So the narrative is crucial: e.g., “Because competitive classical dance rarely involves generating revenue or high salaries, criterion 9 does not readily apply; instead, the dancer’s acclaim is better shown by some alternate marker.”
Once they accept the criterion isn’t applicable, they see if the evidence provided is truly comparable in significance to what the original criterion would indicate. They will ask: does this evidence show a level of achievement roughly equivalent to the intent of that criterion? For example, criterion 2 (membership) is about peer-acknowledged excellence – so a comparable piece should also show peer recognition (maybe a special appointment or honor). They won’t accept something of clearly lesser weight. For instance, substituting a generic training certificate as “comparable evidence” of an award won’t fly; it doesn’t show acclaim, it’s just credential.
They also ensure you’re not using comparable evidence when a criterion actually could apply and you just didn’t meet it. The policy says it’s not to bypass a shortfall but to address a genuine mismatch. For example, not having press doesn’t mean press criterion doesn’t apply (if field does get press, just you didn’t get any, that’s a weakness, not an inapplicability). If one tries that, the officer might view it skeptically or deny. However, fields like certain academic specializations might legitimately have little media but maybe heavy in citations – one can still meet press via citations commentary, but if not, one would use contributions with citations evidence more likely.
They consider all comparable evidence alongside regular criteria evidence; using comparable doesn’t lower the overall standard – extraordinary ability must still be shown. And even with comparable evidence, you still need at least three criteria total (e.g., you could use comparable to fulfill one criterion, but you still need two others in the standard or comparable form).
Finally, they caution against just labeling random extras as “comparable” without proper explanation. Also, one should avoid using it if the criterion actually fits and the person just doesn’t meet it (like in the example given: a singer with no press can’t just say “press doesn’t apply to singers” – because it does, they just haven’t gotten it). That would likely be rejected.
Common pitfalls: The most common pitfall is not articulating why the regular criteria don’t apply. Some petitions throw in extra letters or evidence and label them “comparable” without specifying a criterion or rationale. That usually fails. The petition should clearly state: “Criterion i doesn’t fit because reasons. In this field, instead, the presented evidence is a hallmark of top achievement, comparable to that criterion’s intent.”
Another pitfall is using comparable evidence when it’s not truly necessary or convincing. For example, trying to use it to patch a weak area rather than a truly inapplicable area. Officers can tell if it looks like an attempt to cover for lack of evidence. The policy explicitly warns that if an applicant uses comparable evidence when a criterion could apply (but they just don’t meet it), it’s not persuasive. For example, if an applicant has no lesser awards, they might say “awards don’t exist in my field” – if that’s not credible, the officer will see it as just lacking awards, not a field issue. Only use it for genuine field-specific differences.
Also, comparable evidence must still point to acclaim. People sometimes think “comparable” means any additional nice evidence. But things like degrees, certifications, or reference letters from colleagues might be extra, but they don’t necessarily show acclaim by others. Always ask, as the policy says: does this evidence show the person’s prominence or recognition in the field? If it’s just more stuff about their skills or projects without showing outside honor or distinction, it’s not useful.
To sum up, use comparable evidence thoughtfully: it’s a tool to address field-specific gaps, and it should be as weighty and indicative of distinction as the original criteria are meant to be. And even after doing so, you must still convince the officer in the final merits stage that all the evidence combined proves the person is at the very top.
After meeting at least three criteria (or providing an acceptable one-time award), the petition moves to Step 2: the final merits determination. At this stage, USCIS evaluates all the evidence in totality to decide whether the person, as a whole, has achieved the level of extraordinary ability required – meaning they have sustained national or international acclaim and are among the small percentage at the top of their field. This is where the officer looks beyond the checklist of criteria and assesses quality, significance, and the overall picture painted by the evidence.
It’s crucial that USCIS conducts this step properly and separately from Step 1. In the past, some adjudicators conflated the two – for instance, by requiring evidence of impact (Step 2 considerations) within the criterion analysis (Step 1). The Kazarian v. USCIS case in 2010 addressed this, clarifying that USCIS should first count the criteria, then do a qualitative review. They shouldn’t impose extra requirements on individual criteria beyond the regulation (for example, they cannot say an article doesn’t count unless it was cited X times; citations are relevant in final merits, not for meeting the authorship criterion itself).
Two-step framework in practice: In Step 1, you either have the major award or you’ve shown at least three criteria with evidence meeting the regulatory definitions. Once that threshold is crossed, Step 2 asks: Does all this evidence, taken together, prove that the person is at the very top of their field and has sustained acclaim?. The officer should consider the totality of evidence, including any evidence that didn’t neatly fit a criterion but was still submitted, as well as the context and significance of each piece. They will weigh factors like: Are the achievements recent and ongoing (sustained)? How prestigious are the awards or roles in context? Did the letters and media convincingly show influence and prominence? Is there consistency in the story that this person is one of the few at the top?
It’s essentially a holistic judgment using a preponderance of the evidence standard – meaning they must decide whether it’s more likely than not that the person meets the high bar of extraordinary ability. Preponderance is the legal standard for these cases: if the evidence makes it more than 50% likely that the claims are true, the petitioner meets the burden. Officers aren’t supposed to require “clear and convincing” or “beyond reasonable doubt” – just more likely than not. This is important, because sometimes USCIS decisions have seemed to demand near certainty or have nitpicked even strong evidence. Reminding them of the proper standard can be part of an effective argument in close cases.
Proper application vs. evidentiary conflation: USCIS should avoid “evidentiary conflation,” which is mixing the Step 2 judgment into Step 1. For example, if an officer were to say “Your scholarly articles aren’t sufficient because they weren’t cited widely,” that would be conflating – citations relate to how influential the work was (a final merits consideration), whereas the criterion just asks if you wrote scholarly articles. Kazarian explicitly pointed out that things like citation counts, while relevant to whether you’re at the top of the field, are not relevant to whether you’ve provided evidence of authorship of articles. So at Step 2, yes, the officer can consider citations to gauge significance of contributions, but they shouldn’t have required them to count the criterion. Similarly, an officer shouldn’t say “you had press but it’s not enough because the article was short” when deciding if criterion 3 is met; if it objectively meets the criterion, it counts – but at Step 2 they can weigh that a one-paragraph mention isn’t strong evidence of sustained acclaim.
If you ever get an RFE or NOID that seems to dismiss evidence because it’s “not persuasive” in isolation even though it meets the criterion, that’s a hint of conflation. The correct approach is to accept it for criterion, then in final merits explain why, despite that evidence, maybe the case still doesn’t show top-of-field. However, USCIS guidance and training now emphasize doing this two-part analysis properly, so ideally officers are following it.
Preponderance standard and burden shifting: According to guidance and case law, once a petitioner has made a prima facie case by meeting the criteria, effectively the burden shifts somewhat – USCIS should approve the petition absent specific reasons to still doubt that the person is at an extraordinary level. One way to articulate this: If the petitioner has, by a preponderance of evidence, shown eligibility (met criteria and evidence points to sustained acclaim), then to deny, the officer should articulate specific, material deficiencies in the overall case. They can’t just say “we’re not convinced” in general terms. In fact, USCIS policy (post-Kazarian) says that in the final merits analysis, if denying, the officer must provide specific reasons why the petitioner is not one of the few at the top despite meeting the criteria. They should not simply restate the standard or say evidence wasn’t enough without context.
For example, a proper final merits denial (if warranted) might say: “Although the petitioner met three criteria, the record as a whole does not show sustained acclaim. The awards presented were all from the petitioner’s university and local region, and no evidence of any national-level recognition was provided. The media articles were brief mentions without indicating significant renown. And while the petitioner played an important role at a reputable company, that company is a mid-sized regional firm, not one known nationally in the field. Therefore, the evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has reached the very top of the field.” That would be a specific reasoning. By contrast, an improper analysis would just say, “The beneficiary has not shown they are one of the small percentage at the top; thus, petition is denied” – without explanation.
As petitioners (or counsel), we want to frame the final merits in our favor by emphasizing the cumulative impact of the evidence. One can argue, for instance: Look at the overall picture – the person has won multiple nationally recognized awards, been featured in major media, plus has expert testimonials linking all this to a pattern of sustained acclaim. If each piece of evidence on its own might be arguable, together they corroborate and reinforce that this individual’s reputation is extraordinary.
Favorable framing strategies: - Tell a coherent story: Rather than a disjointed list of accomplishments, weave the evidence into a narrative of rising and sustained prominence. For example: “Early in her career, she won the XYZ Award (Criterion 1), which led to high-profile media coverage (Criterion 3). Building on that acclaim, she took a leading role at the prestigious ABC Institute (Criterion 8), where her innovations garnered further press and professional accolades. Over the last decade, she has consistently been invited as a keynote speaker and expert judge (Criterion 4) at top conferences, reflecting continuous recognition. Every piece of evidence builds on the last to show an ongoing trajectory of excellence.” This helps the officer see sustained acclaim, not one-hit wonders or isolated incidents. - Emphasize quality of evidence: If some criteria were met with extremely strong evidence (like a globally distinguished award or a groundbreaking patent used worldwide), highlight those as essentially trumping any lesser points. The policy even suggests that meeting the criteria with strong evidence should generally result in approval unless a specific reason not. For instance, “The petitioner’s achievement of winning the Fields Medal (major award) and publishing in Nature with record-high citations should, on their face, establish his extraordinary ability. Under Kazarian, since we have met the criteria with such caliber, the petition should be approved absent any specific counter-evidence.” - Address any weak points directly: If there are known weaknesses (say one criterion was barely met or evidence is older), preemptively explain why it doesn’t undercut the overall acclaim. E.g., “Although the media coverage submitted was primarily from trade publications, those are in fact the key outlets in this niche field and are widely read by the experts – hence they carry weight in demonstrating national recognition within the professional community.” Or, “The petitioner’s salary, while moderate by general U.S. standards, is actually among the highest in their country, as evidenced by local wage data, reflecting top-tier status regionally – combined with their other international achievements, it underscores global acclaim.” - Cite standards and precedent: Remind USCIS of the standards they must apply. For instance, mention that the burden of proof is preponderance (more likely than not). Note that Kazarian instructs not to impose novel requirements beyond the regs. If an RFE/NOID had misstatements (like misquoting “major significance requires influence on field as a whole,” which some have done, e.g., misreading of Visinscaia case), politely clarify the correct interpretation. For example, the regulation doesn’t demand influencing the entire field universally, just major significance in context – you can argue that point using AAO decisions or the text. - Use expert letters smartly: In final merits, letters of support can be more explicitly helpful. They shouldn’t just recite criteria, but they can tie everything together: e.g., “Prof. Z’s letter explains how each of Dr. Y’s contributions – from her highly-cited papers to her leadership in the industry consortium – collectively have changed the landscape of the field. Multiple independent experts concur that she is among a handful of leaders internationally.” Such synthesis in letters can guide the officer’s thinking in final merits. But caution: USCIS doesn’t accept letters alone if not backed by facts. Ensure letters reference specifics (which you have documented). - Highlight any ongoing acclaim: Sustained means it’s not a one-time flash. If recent evidence exists (like continuing invitations, new awards during the process, etc.), mention those to show momentum. Even if not formally submitted as separate criterion evidence, they can be mentioned in the cover letter or by an expert to show the acclaim is ongoing. - Frame it as meeting the statutory definition: Ultimately, the statute and reg define extraordinary ability as “sustained acclaim” and “one of the small percentage at the top”. Use those phrases in summarizing the case: “Taken together, the record demonstrates that the beneficiary has achieved sustained national and international acclaim and stands as one of the small percentage at the top of their field. This is evidenced by recap big points and is further supported by the unanimous opinion of experts in the field. Under the preponderance standard, this easily meets the required showing.” - Address any prior O-1 if relevant: If the individual had an O-1 visa (nonimmigrant extraordinary ability) previously, mention that “While not determinative, the prior O-1 classification underscores USCIS has recognized the beneficiary’s extraordinary ability before. There have been no declines in his achievements since – in fact, they have grown. Consistency suggests an approval here as well.” USCIS can deny EB-1 even if O-1 was given, but they typically should explain if they do so; it’s a subtle positive factor to point out.
Burden shifts and officer’s articulation: As mentioned, once the criteria are satisfied with a prima facie case, officers essentially need to articulate a concrete reason to deny. For example, they might articulate: “Although three criteria are met, the evidence lacks any indication of peer acclaim or impact beyond the petitioner’s immediate circle; the awards are local, the press is self-generated, and letters are from collaborators – thus, the petitioner’s acclaim does not appear to reach the level of national recognition expected.” If an officer cannot articulate something like that and is just unsatisfied in general, that’s not a defensible denial. We can argue in a response: According to the USCIS’s own guidance (citing, e.g., an AILA memo or policy manual), once the minimum criteria are met, the petition should be approved absent specific, substantiated reasons to conclude the person is not extraordinary. We could quote: “If a petitioner has satisfied three criteria, he or she has demonstrated, by a preponderance, prima facie eligibility. At that point, the burden shifts to USCIS to show, by specific evidence, that the person is not at the required level.” This isn’t in the reg but is an argument made by practitioners and aligns with the idea of a proper final merits analysis requiring specificity.
In practice, a well-prepared petition will try to prevent a negative final merits by making the evidence as robust and clear as possible in Step 1 and tying it together for Step 2. The attorney’s cover letter or brief should do a final merits argument explicitly, so the officer reading it can adopt that reasoning if inclined to approve, or is at least challenged to refute it point by point if they consider denial.
In summary for Step 2: We ensure USCIS applies the two-step process correctly, separating the objective meeting of criteria from the subjective overall evaluation. We remind them of the preponderance of evidence standard (more likely than not), not requiring extraordinary evidence beyond the criteria (Kazarian cautioned against “novel substantive requirements” beyond the regs). We guard against any conflation by pointing it out if it occurs (e.g., if an officer says “no evidence the award had international media coverage, so criterion not met,” we’d counter that’s a final merits consideration). And we present a compelling synthesis that all the evidentiary threads weave into a tapestry of an extraordinary career.
If done well, by the end of Step 2 the officer should have a clear and convincing argument in front of them that the person not only checks the boxes, but truly stands out as one of the elite in their profession – which is exactly what the EB-1A category is for. As one guidance put it, meeting the criteria with robust evidence generally means the petition should be approved absent a specific, articulable reason to conclude the person is not in fact extraordinary. Our goal in final merits is to eliminate any such reasons by addressing them head-on, and thereby secure an approval.
Let us handle the legal details while you shine on the grand stage.
