If you have read anything about the EB-1A green card, you have probably seen the phrase "Kazarian two-step." It describes how USCIS actually reviews an extraordinary ability petition, and it explains why some petitions that clearly meet three criteria are still denied. Understanding it changes how you build a case.
This guide explains where the framework came from, what happens at each step, where petitions most often fall short, and how to present a record that holds up under the full review.
Where the two-step comes from
The EB-1A regulations list ten evidentiary criteria and say that an applicant who does not have a one-time major, internationally recognized award must provide evidence of at least three of them. For years, the way officers applied those criteria varied. Some read additional requirements into individual criteria, effectively raising the bar for each one on its own.
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed this in Kazarian v. USCIS. The case involved a petition by a theoretical physicist. The court held that the agency had imposed requirements on certain criteria that the regulation does not contain, such as expecting articles to be widely cited before they could count as scholarly authorship. Concerns of that kind, the court said, belong in a final evaluation of the whole record, not in the question of whether a criterion has been met. The court still upheld the denial in that case, because the evidence did not satisfy enough criteria on their plain terms.
The decision separated two questions that had often been blended together: does the evidence meet the criteria, and does the record as a whole show extraordinary ability?
How USCIS adopted it
Later in 2010, USCIS issued policy guidance adopting the two-part approach for EB-1A petitions, and it now appears in the USCIS Policy Manual. Although Kazarian is a Ninth Circuit decision, the agency applies the framework nationwide.
Under that guidance, officers first determine whether the evidence meets the regulatory criteria, and then, if at least three are met, make a final merits determination on the totality of the evidence. Throughout, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the officer must find that the claim is more likely than not true. Applicants do not need to prove their case beyond doubt, but each claim must be supported.
Step one: meeting the criteria
At step one, the officer asks a narrow question for each criterion you claim: does the evidence meet the plain terms of the regulation?
The ten criteria are nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence, memberships that require outstanding achievement, published material about you in professional or major media, judging the work of others, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, display of your work at artistic exhibitions or showcases, a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations, a high salary or significantly high remuneration, and commercial success in the performing arts.
At this step, the officer should not add requirements the regulation does not state. If you served as a peer reviewer for a journal, that is evidence of judging the work of others. The officer should not, at this stage, demand that the journal be the most prestigious in your field. That question of weight comes later.
Step one still requires real evidence. Each criterion has its own terms, and the exhibit has to match them. Published material has to be about you and your work. Memberships have to require outstanding achievement as judged by recognized experts. A critical role needs both a critical role and a distinguished organization. Where a criterion does not readily apply to your occupation, the regulations allow comparable evidence, with an explanation of why the standard criterion does not fit.
If fewer than three criteria are met, the petition fails at step one, and the officer does not need to reach the final merits review.
Step two: the final merits determination
If at least three criteria are met, the officer moves to the final merits determination. This is where the question becomes much broader. Taking all of the evidence together, does it show that you have sustained national or international acclaim, and that you are one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of your field?
At step two, the officer weighs the evidence rather than counting it. The same factors that were set aside at step one now matter: how selective an award is, how significant a publication is, how much influence a contribution has had, how long the recognition has lasted. Evidence submitted for criteria you did not ultimately meet can also be considered here, because the review covers the entire record.
Two ideas carry most of the weight. The first is acclaim that is sustained, meaning recognition that has continued over time rather than a single moment of attention. The second is placement at the very top of the field, which is a comparative judgment. The record needs to show not only that you are accomplished, but how your accomplishments compare with others working in the same area.
Step one asks whether each piece of evidence fits its category. Step two asks what all of it, together, says about your standing in the field.
Where petitions most often fall short
Most EB-1A denials and requests for evidence trace back to a small set of patterns.
- Counting instead of persuading. A petition that documents three or four criteria with thin evidence may pass step one and still fail step two, because nothing in the record shows standing at the top of the field.
- No context for the field. Officers are not specialists in your area. If the petition does not explain what an award, venue or role means within your field, its weight is easy to underestimate.
- Recognition that is mostly internal. Praise from colleagues and employers has value, but acclaim is usually shown through recognition from people and institutions outside your own organization.
- Recognition that is not sustained. Strong evidence clustered in a short period, with little before or after, can leave the officer unsure whether the acclaim has lasted.
- Contributions described but not shown to matter. Claiming a contribution of major significance requires evidence that others have relied on it, adopted it or been influenced by it, not just a description of the work.
- Generic expert letters. Letters that praise without specifics, or that read as if written from the same template, add little at either step.
If you have already received a request for evidence that raises these issues, our RFE response work focuses on addressing them directly.
How to build a petition that survives step two
The most reliable approach is to plan for step two from the beginning, rather than treating it as a hurdle after the criteria are met.
Lead with your strongest criteria
Three criteria supported by deep, well documented evidence usually serve a petition better than six supported by thin exhibits. Choose the criteria where your record is strongest and invest in them.
Prove standing, not just existence
For every exhibit, document what it is and what it means. For an award, show the selection process, the size of the field and past recipients. For media coverage, show the outlet's reach. For judging, show the standing of the venue or competition. This evidence is often what persuades at step two.
Show the arc over time
Organize the record so the officer can see recognition building and continuing across years. A short chronology in the petition letter can make sustained acclaim visible at a glance.
Make comparisons explicit
Because step two is comparative, the petition should help the officer see where you stand relative to others in the field. Citation benchmarks, selection rates, rankings and independent expert assessments all contribute.
Use expert letters for what only experts can provide
The most useful letters come from respected people who can explain, with specifics, why your work matters and how it compares with that of others. Independent experts who know your work but have not worked with you directly are especially valuable. Our evidence and expert letters page describes how we approach this.
Write a petition letter that does the synthesis
The petition letter should not simply list exhibits. It should walk the officer through both steps: first how each criterion is met on its plain terms, then why the whole record shows sustained acclaim at the top of your field.
Examples of framing
The same achievement can be presented in ways that help or hurt at step two. A few generic illustrations:
- Judging. Weak: "The applicant reviewed papers for several journals." Stronger: "The applicant was invited by the editors of leading journals in the field to review submissions, completed a documented number of reviews, and was selected for a program committee whose members are drawn from senior researchers."
- Critical role. Weak: "The applicant served as head of engineering." Stronger: "The applicant designed and led the system that became the company's core product, which is now used by major customers in the industry, and the company's standing is shown by its investors, coverage and market position."
- Original contributions. Weak: "The applicant developed a new method." Stronger: "The method has been adopted by independent research groups and companies, cited as the basis for later work, and described by independent experts as a significant change in how the problem is approached."
- Published material. Weak: "The applicant was mentioned in industry press." Stronger: "Major trade publications with documented national readership have published features focused on the applicant's work and its impact on the field."
In each case, the stronger version answers the step two question before the officer has to ask it.
What this means for the O-1A
The O-1A uses a closely related standard. Applicants without a major internationally recognized award must meet at least three of eight criteria, and the overall question is whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and a level of expertise placing the applicant among the small percentage at the top of the field.
In practice, USCIS evaluates O-1A petitions with a similar two-part approach: first determining whether the evidence meets the criteria, then evaluating the totality of the evidence. Building an O-1A petition with step two in mind therefore pays off twice. It strengthens the O-1A itself, and it creates a well organized foundation for a later EB-1A. Our guide to O-1 visa requirements covers the O-1A criteria in detail, and the O-1A page explains how we approach those petitions.
Key takeaway
- Step one asks whether at least three criteria are met on their plain terms.
- Step two weighs the entire record for sustained acclaim and standing at the very top of the field.
- Petitions usually fail at step two through thin evidence, missing context or generic letters.
- Plan for step two from the start: fewer, deeper criteria with standing proven for each exhibit.
Talking it through
If you are weighing an EB-1A, the most useful first step is an honest assessment of how your record would look at both steps. In a consultation, we map your achievements to the criteria, identify where standing is already well documented and where it is not, and outline how to close the gaps. You can read more on our EB-1A page, or compare paths in our guide to EB-1A vs EB-2 NIW.
When the record is ready, we prepare the full petition, and it is reviewed, signed and filed by an independent licensed immigration attorney. To start, book a consultation.