Question 1

If I meet three criteria, am I approved?

Accepted Answer

Not automatically. Under Kazarian, meeting three of the regulatory criteria establishes initial eligibility, but USCIS then conducts a discretionary final merits analysis to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and standing at the very top of the field. We have seen petitions that clearly met three or more criteria denied at Step 2, and we have seen petitions that satisfied four or five criteria approved on a strong final merits narrative. Treating the threshold count as the entire analysis tends to produce weaker filings; the strongest filings build the final merits narrative from the outset.

Question 2

How is "sustained" acclaim measured?

Accepted Answer

The statute and regulation require sustained acclaim, meaning recognition that is ongoing rather than isolated to a single moment. Officers tend to look at the temporal distribution of the petitioner's accomplishments: recent awards, recent publications, recent press, recent leadership roles. There is no specific time window defined by regulation, but a record concentrated entirely in a single year or in a distant past period sometimes draws sustained-acclaim challenges. Continued activity in the field, even at a less heightened level, tends to support the sustained framing more than a single peak followed by silence.

Question 3

How do officers define "the very top of the field of endeavor"?

Accepted Answer

The regulation does not numerically define what fraction of a field constitutes the "very top." Officers vary in their interpretation, with some reading the phrase as requiring evidence that the petitioner is among the few most recognized practitioners in the field, and others applying a more flexible standard that asks whether the petitioner stands among the most accomplished within a defined area of endeavor. Defining the field carefully is important: a field defined too broadly weakens the petitioner's relative position, while a field defined too narrowly invites the argument that the field is constructed for the petition. We have seen final-merits denials turn on how the field was framed.

Question 4

Has Mukherji v. Miller changed how USCIS conducts final merits?

Accepted Answer

The case and similar district court decisions are part of a developing body of law that has pushed back against final-merits denials in which the agency appeared to relitigate the threshold criteria under the Step 2 banner. Whether and how USCIS has changed its internal adjudication practice in response is hard to assess from the outside; we can say that we have seen recent RFEs and denials that articulate Step 2 reasoning more carefully than was sometimes the case in earlier years, and that federal court remands have produced some approvals on second-look adjudication. The decisions do not eliminate Step 2 discretion, but they have placed some boundaries on how the analysis is conducted.

Question 5

Should I file the petition focused on threshold criteria and only address final merits if I get an RFE?

Accepted Answer

In our experience, treating final merits as an afterthought tends to weaken the filing. A petition that meets three criteria but does not articulate the acclaim narrative, the sustained framing, or the field-of-endeavor argument leaves the Step 2 analysis to the officer's unaided reading of the record. The strongest filings frame the final merits argument in the cover document and organize the evidentiary exhibits to support that frame, so that when the officer reaches Step 2 the answer is already on the page rather than left to be inferred.

Question 6

Can I add evidence after the petition is filed to address final merits in an RFE?

Accepted Answer

Yes, RFE responses are an opportunity to supplement the record with additional evidence of sustained acclaim, recent recognition, expert opinion on the petitioner's standing, and any other material that addresses the officer's specific concerns. Where the officer has identified a Step 2 gap (sustained acclaim, geographic scope, field definition, top-of-the-field standing), the response should address that gap directly rather than restate the threshold criteria. Adding new evidence that was available at the time of filing but not included tends to be less persuasive than adding evidence that has come into existence since filing or that responds specifically to the officer's articulated concern.

Question 7

Does federal court litigation on Step 2 ever make sense?

Accepted Answer

Where USCIS has issued a denial that, in the petitioner's reading, conflates Step 1 and Step 2 or fails to articulate a reasoned Step 2 analysis, federal court review under the Administrative Procedure Act is one of the available paths. Decisions like Mukherji and similar cases have produced remands and, in some instances, approvals on second-look adjudication. Federal court litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain, and it is not the right path for every denial; in many cases, a strong RFE response, a motion to reopen or reconsider, or a refiled petition with additional evidence is the better approach. The decision turns on the specific record, the agency's reasoning, and the petitioner's circumstances.

Question 8

Does meeting more than three criteria help at final merits?

Accepted Answer

In our experience, meeting more than the threshold number of criteria has tended to support a stronger Step 2 posture, although the analysis is not a count and meeting four thin criteria is not necessarily better than meeting three deep ones. The qualitative depth of evidence under each criterion, the coherence of the narrative across criteria, and the geographic and temporal distribution of recognition tend to drive Step 2 outcomes more than the raw criteria count. That said, additional criteria, when genuinely supported, broaden the evidentiary record and reduce the risk that a single criterion's weakness drives the overall analysis.

EB-1A Criterion: Final Merits Determination

What the rule actually says

What qualifies

Strong vs. weak evidence

Strong

Weak or commonly misused

How USCIS pushes back on this criterion

Frequently Asked Questions

Ready to Get Started?