Most petitioners who receive an EB-1A RFE assume the problem is arithmetic. They counted three criteria, submitted evidence for each, and cannot understand the objection. The objection is usually somewhere else entirely.
The Two Step Analysis
USCIS evaluates extraordinary ability petitions in two steps. At step one, the officer determines whether the evidence objectively meets the regulatory parameters of at least three of the ten criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3), or whether the person received a one time major international award. The USCIS Policy Manual is explicit that this step is limited to whether the evidentiary requirements are satisfied, not whether the person ranks at the top of the field.
At step two, the final merits determination, the officer evaluates all the evidence together to decide whether the person is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and has sustained national or international acclaim.
Clearing step one and failing step two is common. That is what most EB-1A RFEs are about.
What the Final Merits Determination Weighs
USCIS guidance identifies factors an officer may consider beyond the criteria themselves. These include publication in high impact journals with citation records showing influence on the field, citation metrics relative to peers in the same discipline, employment at leading institutions, unsolicited invitations to speak at recognized conferences, and service as a named investigator on competitively funded government research grants.
The guidance also states plainly that voluminous documentation may not contain sufficient persuasive evidence, and that support letters should not form the cornerstone of a successful claim. Letters must be corroborated by documentary evidence rather than restating the regulatory language or making general assertions.
Where Petitions Commonly Fall Short
Original contributions of major significance is the criterion most often challenged, because it requires proof of impact on the field rather than proof that work was performed. Judging and membership evidence is often submitted without showing the selection standard applied. Comparable evidence is submitted without first establishing that a criterion is not readily applicable to the person’s occupation, which the guidance requires.
Why the Response Has to Be Custom
Two petitioners in the same discipline with similar citation counts can receive different outcomes because the surrounding record differs. A response has to be constructed from your actual body of work, the recognition it received, how that recognition compares within your specific field, and the way your contributions connect to the United States economy. Anyone offering a standard package is not analyzing your case.
Note also that USCIS guidance directs officers to articulate specific reasons rather than assert general insufficiency. That works in your favor. Read the notice as a map of exactly which element the adjudicator is questioning, then answer that element with documentary proof rather than restating what was already filed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the final merits determination in an EB-1A case?
It is the second step where USCIS weighs all evidence together to assess whether you are among the very top of your field with sustained acclaim.
Does meeting three criteria guarantee approval?
No. Meeting three criteria satisfies step one only. The final merits determination follows.
Can I use comparable evidence for EB-1A?
Yes, but you must first show that a criterion is not readily applicable to your occupation. Comparable evidence cannot substitute for the one time achievement.
Are recommendation letters enough?
No. USCIS guidance states letters should not be the cornerstone of a claim and must be corroborated by documentation.
Is there an age or years of experience requirement?
No. USCIS guidance states that sustained does not imply an age limit on the beneficiary.
DISCLAIMER: This blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship between the reader & Ahluwalia Law Offices, P.C. The legal information provided herein may not apply to your individual circumstances & is subject to change based on evolving immigration laws and policies. Readers are strongly encouraged to consult directly with a qualified immigration attorney for guidance tailored to their specific situation. Our front desk staff is not authorized to interpret legal information or provide legal advice beyond what is explicitly stated in this blog. They are also not permitted to assess eligibility, review case details, or respond to case-specific inquiries.
Please note: Due to the high volume of inquiries and the sensitive nature of immigration matters, we cannot respond to questions or requests for legal analysis via phone or email unless a formal consultation has been scheduled. We appreciate your understanding and encourage you to book an appointment with one of our attorneys if you require personalized legal assistance.
