What USCIS requires.
The statute, INA §203(b)(1)(A), asks for extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, shown by sustained national or international acclaim. The regulation at 8 CFR §204.5(h) turns that into evidence: either a one-time major international award, such as a Nobel Prize, or documentation meeting at least three of ten criteria.
Meeting three criteria is only the first step. Since Kazarian v. USCIS (9th Cir. 2010), officers count the criteria first and then weigh the whole record in a final merits determination, asking whether the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. USCIS sets out that two-step review in its policy manual chapter on extraordinary ability, and most denials now come at the second step. In Q3 FY2026 USCIS approved 32.2% of EB-1A petitions, down from 47.5% in Q1; our analysis of the EB-1A approval data covers what changed.
This guide is about the evidence. For fees, timelines, and working with us, see the EB-1A service page.
The ten criteria and the evidence that proves them.
Each row lists one criterion from 8 CFR §204.5(h)(3), the evidence that usually satisfies it, and the reasons officers most often reject it. Strong petitions document four or five criteria, so that losing one in review does not sink the case.
| Criterion | Evidence that works | Why it gets rejected |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards | Awards judged by independent experts, with evidence of the selection criteria, the number of entrants, and who else has won | Internal employer awards, student or early-career prizes limited to a small pool, or no proof of the award's standing in the field |
| 2. Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement | Elected fellowships or memberships where current members or experts judge the candidate's achievements; the bylaws showing that test | Memberships open to anyone who pays dues or holds a degree, or no documentation of how members are chosen |
| 3. Published material about the petitioner | Articles in major media or professional and trade publications that are about the petitioner's work, with the author, date, and the outlet's circulation | Articles that mention the petitioner only in passing, press releases from the employer, or pieces the petitioner wrote |
| 4. Judging the work of others | Completed peer reviews, grant panel service, or competition judging, with confirmation from the journal or organizer | Invitations to review with no proof the reviews were done, or judging that was a routine part of the job |
| 5. Original contributions of major significance | Independent adoption of the work: citations from other groups, licensed patents, products or clinical practice built on it, with expert letters naming the specific contribution | Letters that praise the petitioner in general terms, or novelty without proof of impact on the field. See original contributions explained |
| 6. Authorship of scholarly articles | Peer-reviewed papers, books, or articles in major trade publications, with citation data showing how the field received them | Unpublished work, or a publication count with nothing showing that others read and used it |
| 7. Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases | Exhibitions or showcases with documented artistic standing, such as juried shows or major venues | Applied to non-artistic work like conference talks, which USCIS generally does not accept here |
| 8. Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations | Letters from leadership describing what the petitioner was responsible for and its effect, org charts, and evidence of the organization's reputation | A senior title with no proof of its effect, or an organization whose distinction is never shown |
| 9. High salary or other remuneration | Pay records set against wage data for the same occupation and location, such as BLS surveys or industry compensation studies; valued equity counts | Comparisons to the wrong occupation, national averages for a high-cost city, or unvalued stock options |
| 10. Commercial success in the performing arts | Box office receipts, sales, or streaming figures, with context showing they stand out in the field | Claimed outside the performing arts, or raw numbers with no comparison |
If a criterion does not readily apply to your occupation, 8 CFR §204.5(h)(4) allows comparable evidence. The petition has to explain why the standard criterion does not fit; comparable evidence cannot stand in for a criterion the petitioner simply fails.
Not sure which criteria your record meets? Get a free evaluation and we'll assess it against all ten and the final merits standard.
How the final merits review weighs the record.
At the second step the officer stops counting criteria and asks one question about the whole file: does it show the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field? Three things decide it.
Recognition has to be sustained
A single breakthrough paper or award, with little before or after it, rarely carries the petition. A record that shows recognition building over years through publications, peer review, grants, invitations, and outside citations does. Lay the evidence out chronologically so the officer can see the acclaim continuing up to the filing date.
Recognition has to come from outside
Officers discount evidence that originates with the petitioner's own employer, coauthors, or advisors. The strongest letters come from senior people at other institutions who know the work from its effect on their own, and who explain specific contributions in terms a non-specialist can follow. Letters that read like job references add little.
Standing has to be shown against the field
Numbers mean nothing to an officer without a comparison. Citation counts need field norms beside them, salary needs a wage survey for the same role and city, and a journal or award needs evidence of where it ranks. The petition should place the petitioner against peers at every point it can.
Common pitfalls and RFE triggers.
Clearing three criteria but failing the final merits determination
Satisfying three criteria is necessary but not sufficient. Petitions that meet the threshold narrowly, with internal awards, modest peer review, and recognition from a single employer, usually fail at step two. Build a record that clearly exceeds three criteria and argue the whole-record case explicitly.
Confusing press about you with press by you
Criterion 3 requires coverage about you and your work, written by others. Articles, conference papers, and op-eds you wrote belong under criterion 6. Filing self-authored pieces as press coverage signals a poorly prepared petition.
Letters only from collaborators, supervisors, or advisors
Close colleagues can explain the work, but they cannot show independent recognition. Balance them with senior researchers from other institutions who have evaluated your work from outside.
Weak salary comparator evidence
A high-salary claim under criterion 9 without proper comparison data is easy to discount. A table setting your compensation against BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics for the specific occupation, area, and experience level, plus a field-specific survey, makes the showing concrete.
Leaving out the plan to keep working in the field
Under 8 CFR §204.5(h)(5), the petition must include clear evidence that you will continue working in your area of expertise in the US. No job offer is needed, but a letter from a prospective employer, a contract, or a detailed statement of plans is, and petitions without one draw RFEs.
Assembling the petition.
What a complete EB-1A filing contains
- Form I-140 and the filing fee, plus Form I-907 if you want premium processing
- A petition letter that argues each claimed criterion and then the final merits case; our petition letter guide covers its structure
- An exhibit index, with every document labeled and cited in the letter
- Six to ten expert letters, most from independent writers, each with the writer's CV
- Comparison evidence for every number: citation norms, wage surveys, rankings of journals and awards
- Evidence of plans to continue working in the field in the US
- Certified translations of anything not in English
Premium processing returns a decision on the I-140 in 15 business days. Once it is approved, the green card stage depends on country of birth: EB-1 is current for most of the world, while the October 2026 Visa Bulletin put EB-1 India at February 1, 2023 and EB-1 China at July 1, 2023. Current standard processing times are on our USCIS processing times page.