“Your Citations Are Not High Enough”

This objection says a petitioner's citation record does not show top-of-field standing. USCIS applies no fixed citation number; it looks at citation rate and h-index relative to the same field and subfield. Raw totals rarely answer it — field-comparative data and evidence of how the field used the work do more.

Ryan Locke, Attorney, Locke Immigration Law

Educational reference — general information about USCIS practice, not legal advice

In Plain English

What this objection actually means

This is the objection that a petitioner's publications or citation counts do not, by themselves, prove the person is “among the small percentage at the top of the field.” It surfaces in two distinct places, and conflating them is a frequent source of confusion. Under the authorship-of-scholarly-articles criterion, the question is whether the person authored qualifying articles in the field — citations are not required to meet that criterion at all. On the final-merits determination, and under the original-contributions criterion, citation impact becomes probative of standing and field-wide significance.

There is no citation number USCIS treats as “significant” across the board. What counts as a strong record in a low-citation humanities subfield looks nothing like a strong record in a high-volume corner of computer science. Because of that, the objection is almost never answered by a bigger raw number; it is answered by showing where the number sits relative to the field, and by showing what the citing literature actually did with the work.

The Legal Standard

What the law and USCIS guidance require

The EB-1A framework is the two-step Kazarian analysis: the petitioner first satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and USCIS then conducts a final-merits determination asking whether the record as a whole shows sustained national or international acclaim and standing among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-22 (9th Cir. 2010); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1346-48 (W.D. Wash. 2011). The Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that structure in Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2022), reasoning that the regulation labels the criteria 'initial evidence' and asks for 'at least three,' so meeting them is a threshold rather than presumptive proof of extraordinary ability.

Citation evidence maps onto that structure. The authorship criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) turns on publication in professional or major trade publications or other major media; a petitioner need not show the work has been cited to meet it — Kazarian treated publication itself as satisfying that criterion, a point Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook (19th ed.) collects at ch. 10. The original-contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) turns on field-wide significance: the USCIS Policy Manual states that work 'cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field' can establish it (6 USCIS-PM F.2), and the Fifth Circuit in Amin, 24 F.4th at 393-94, required impact beyond the petitioner's own employer — adoption or influence across the field — for a contribution to count as 'major.' At final merits, the Policy Manual recognizes that a total citation rate high 'relative to others in the field,' such as a high h-index for the field, may indicate standing among the small percentage at the top (6 USCIS-PM F.2) — which is why field-comparative data, not a bare count, carries the argument.

Journal-level metrics are treated as context, not proof of an article's own impact. The Policy Manual notes that impact factor measures a journal's influence — the average number of citations received per article over the two preceding years — rather than the significance of any single article, citing Garfield, The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor, 295 JAMA 90 (2006) (6 USCIS-PM F.2 n.45), so it supports but does not substitute for article-level evidence.

The objection often takes the form that a petitioner's citation count does not match that of the scientists at the very top of the field, who have citations in the thousands. That framing asks for the wrong yardstick. The governing standard is 'a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor,' 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) — not the single highest count in the discipline. Courts have rejected readings that collapse 'the very top' into 'the most decorated': in Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 446 (N.D. Ill. 1995), the court held the agency 'misapplied its own definition of extraordinary ability' when it assumed 'only all-stars or the League's highest-paid players have extraordinary ability,' calling that 'an overly grudging interpretation of its own regulation.'

Governing authorities

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v): Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi): Authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media — met by authorship, without a citation showing.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2): Defines extraordinary ability as being one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field — the benchmark the citation objection is measured against, not a fixed count.
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010): Establishes the two-step method: count qualifying criteria first, then weigh the whole record in a final-merits determination; treats publication as satisfying the authorship criterion.
Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022): Meeting three criteria is 'initial evidence,' not presumptive approval; a contribution is of 'major significance' only if it shows impact — adoption or influence — beyond the petitioner's own employer.
Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011): Applies the two-step framework; places the 'sustained acclaim' inquiry — where cumulative citation comparisons fit — in the final-merits determination rather than the threshold criteria.
Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995): Rejects a 'superstar-only' reading of the standard as an overly grudging interpretation; extraordinary ability means the small percentage at the very top, not the single highest achiever.
USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 2 (6 USCIS-PM F.2): Recognizes that work cited at a level indicative of major significance can support the original-contributions criterion, and that a high total citation rate or h-index for the field may indicate top-of-field standing; notes the h-index is less relevant early in a career.
Garfield, The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor, 295 JAMA 90 (2006): Source the Policy Manual cites (6 USCIS-PM F.2 n.45) for the definition of impact factor as a measure of a journal's influence, not an individual article's significance.
Hirsch, An Index to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Research Output, 102 PNAS 16569 (2005): Source the Policy Manual cites (6 USCIS-PM F.2 n.46) defining the h-index — the highest number of a researcher's publications each cited at least that many times.

How the AAO Has Reasoned

How the AAO has analyzed this evidence

Drawn from de-identified, publicly available AAO decisions. These illustrate how the Administrative Appeals Office has analyzed the evidence in front of it — not the odds of any particular case.

The AAO has declined to treat a raw Google Scholar total, measured against scientists “at the very top” with citations in the thousands, as the right yardstick, and instead looked to field-comparative data showing where the petitioner ranked among peers. In one decision it credited a report placing the petitioner's citations by percentile within the field, and treated a rising percentile over time as evidence the acclaim was sustained.

“The record contains a report demonstrating how his citation count compares to others in the field.”
In re [Non-Precedent Decision] (AAO Oct. 23, 2018)

For researchers, the AAO has framed the citation record itself — not the fact of publication — as the meaningful signal, reasoning that because publishing is inherent to scientific work, the influence of the articles is what shows impact. It has treated a thin citation record as a sign the work went largely unremarked, and a substantial one as evidence the field engaged with it.

“As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of his articles is an important indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained.”
In re [Non-Precedent Decision] (AAO Feb. 28, 2018)

In other decisions the AAO has held that citation metrics alone — counts, percentiles, or top-cited percentages — do not by themselves establish major significance, because adding to the pool of knowledge is inherent in any published research. The analysis it endorsed compares the work to articles the field itself treats as majorly significant and asks whether the citing literature engaged with the work as authoritative.

“Citation to one's work alone is insufficient to confirm contributions of major significance in the field.”
In re [Applied physics] (AAO Jan. 18, 2019)

The AAO has also specified what a persuasive citation comparison looks like: not the petitioner's count against a baseline or average, but against the specific articles the field treats as landmarks. Ranking above an average, standing alone, does not establish that a contribution is of major significance.

“A more appropriate analysis, for example, would be to compare the Petitioner's citations to other similarly highly cited articles that the field views as having been of major significance, as well as factoring in other corroborating evidence.”
In re [Silicon photonics] (AAO Feb. 19, 2019)

The AAO has also drawn a line between the two stages: comparing a petitioner's citation totals to other scientists is generally more appropriate at final merits, where the question is sustained acclaim, than when deciding whether a specific contribution is of major significance. At the criterion stage, what the AAO examined was the substance of how other researchers used the work — direct adoption of methods rather than background citation.

“The substance of the findings noted by other researchers who cite the Petitioner is relevant to whether her contributions are of major significance in the field.”
In re [Non-Precedent Decision] (AAO Oct. 31, 2018)

Phrases That Signal This Objection

The stock language USCIS uses for this objection

When an RFE or denial reaches this objection, it tends to use one of these phrases. Each is decoded from the firm's RFE library — what it means, the standard it invokes, and the authority behind it.

“The citation record does not show a citation rate that is high relative to others in the field.”

EB-1A

USCIS is saying citation numbers were submitted without comparative context, so the record does not show whether they are high relative to others in the same field. On final merits USCIS may treat a citation rate that is high relative to peers, or a high field-specific h-index, as an indicator that a person is among the small percentage at the top. The objection is that raw counts alone, without field-normalized comparison, do not carry that inference.

The standardOn the final merits determination USCIS may treat a citation rate that is high relative to others in the field as evidence the person is among the small percentage at the top.

AuthorityUSCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 2

“The journal impact factor measures the influence of the journal, not the significance of the beneficiary's own article.”

EB-1AO-1

USCIS is saying that impact factor and similar journal-level metrics describe how often the average article in that journal is cited, so they show the stature of the outlet rather than the significance of the beneficiary's specific article. The point is that these metrics support, but do not replace, article-level evidence of the beneficiary's own impact. USCIS treats journal metrics as context for venue prestige, not as proof of the individual's significance.

The standardImpact factor measures a journal's influence and is used to support, not substitute for, article-level evidence of the beneficiary's significance.

AuthorityUSCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 2

“The citations do not demonstrate that the beneficiary's work is of major significance in the field.”

EB-1A

USCIS is saying that being cited proves other researchers are aware of the work, but the record did not connect that to a broad, important effect on the field. It distinguishes routine citation from evidence of a demonstrable change others attribute to the work. USCIS is describing citations offered as a headcount rather than as proof of field-level influence.

The standardCitation evidence must be tied to the field-level significance of the work; awareness alone does not establish major significance.

Authority8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(v)

What Strong Responses Address

What responses to this objection generally document

General patterns seen in effective responses to this objection. This is educational context, not a recommendation about any specific case.

•Responses to this objection generally present field-normalized data — percentile rankings or citation distributions from sources such as Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar — rather than raw totals, so the record shows where the petitioner sits relative to the specific subfield.
•They generally document a citation trajectory over time, including early uptake, to speak to the “sustained” element rather than a single snapshot.
•For the original-contributions criterion, they generally shift from quantity to substance: showing how citing researchers built on, adopted, or implemented the work, rather than citing it only as background.
•They generally establish venue significance with journal-level metrics (impact factor, CiteScore, SJR) and circulation or audience data, while treating those as context for the article rather than a stand-in for its impact.
•For early-career petitioners, they generally foreground alternative indicators the Policy Manual recognizes — competitively awarded grants, publication in highly ranked venues, invited talks, and peer-reviewed conference publications — to contextualize lower raw counts.
•They generally pair the metrics with independent, corroborating evidence (patents in use, adoption or replication by other groups, expert analysis grounded in the record) so the citation story does not stand alone.

Keep Reading

Related criteria and tools

Authorship of scholarly articles Original contributions of major significance The final-merits determination Search RFE phrases

Every case turns on its own record

This page describes how USCIS and the AAO have treated a recurring objection in general. How it applies to a specific petition depends on the field, the evidence, and the exact wording of the notice. An attorney review reads your notice against your filed record before any response is drafted.

Request an attorney review →

Facing an RFE like this?

Send us the notice and your filed petition. We'll tell you how we read the objection and what a response would need to establish.

Immigration counsel to Fortune 500 employers at a national firm · Adjudicated 12,000+ visas at the U.S. Consulate, Mexico · Working in U.S. immigration since 2008
Featured in Newsweek, Condé Nast Traveler, Daily Mail