Meeting three criteria clears step one. Step two asks something else: whether the record as a whole shows someone among the small percentage at the very top of the field. A great many petitions answer the first question thoroughly and never address the second.
- A different question, not a tally of criteria met
- Meeting three criteria is not sufficient on its own
- Evidence outside the ten criteria counts at this stage
- Officers cannot demand a particular type of evidence that is absent
- The petitioner must explain significance, not just submit exhibits
The two steps, stated
"Step 2 Final merits determination: Evaluate all the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety for the final merits determination, in the context of the high level of expertise required for this immigrant classification." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
And the point that makes step two independent rather than decorative:
"However, objectively meeting the regulatory criteria in the first step alone does not establish that the person in fact meets the requirements for classification as a person with extraordinary ability." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
The guidance then illustrates with two examples that are worth sitting with. Judging the work of others "alone, regardless of the circumstances, should satisfy the regulatory criteria in the first step". Publishing scholarly articles "alone, regardless of the caliber" likewise satisfies step one. In both cases the second step then asks whether the activity "was indicative of the person being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor".
Regardless of the circumstances. Regardless of the caliber. Step one is close to a formality for anyone who genuinely holds the evidence; the case is won or lost at step two.
What the officer is deciding
"To establish eligibility, the petition must demonstrate that the person has sustained national or international acclaim and that their achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the person is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
Two components, both about standing rather than about activity: sustained acclaim, covered in sustained acclaim, and recognition in the field. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.
The evidence USCIS names
The guidance publishes a list of situations where evidence "may help officers evaluate the quality of the initial or comparable evidence" at this stage. It is not a checklist, and it is not exhaustive, but it is the closest thing to a map of what carries weight:
| Factor | What the guidance points to |
|---|---|
| Journal standing | Articles in "particularly highly-ranked journals (including published conference proceedings) relative to other journals in the field", evidenced for example by impact factor, especially where the person is "the most significant contributor", a senior author, or sole author |
| Citation rate | Total citations "high relative to others in the field", such as a high h-index for the field, depending on the field and the comparative data provided |
| Institutional standing | Employment or research experience with leading institutions, such as universities recognised as having high or very high research activity by the Carnegie Classification, comparably active foreign universities, or ones highly regarded on a widely recognised metric such as QS |
| Unsolicited invitations | Invitations to speak or present research at nationally or internationally recognised conferences, which the guidance calls "generally indicative of a person's high standing" |
| Competitive funding | Being named as an investigator, scientist, or researcher on a peer-reviewed and competitively-funded U.S. government grant or stipend for STEM research |
Notice how many of these are comparative. Relative to other journals. Relative to others in the field. That is the shape of a step-two argument: not that a thing is impressive, but that it is unusual measured against your field. Citations and publications as EB-1A evidence and getting speaking invitations go into two of these in depth.
What officers may not do
Two constraints work in the petitioner's favour, and both are worth knowing if you receive an adverse decision.
They cannot require a type of evidence you did not submit. The guidance says an officer "may not limit the kind of evidence the officer thinks the person should be able to submit and deny the petition if that particular type of evidence... is absent, if the person nonetheless submitted other types of evidence that meet the regulatory requirements". The worked example: an officer may think an extraordinary person would have published articles about them, but "cannot deny the petition because no published articles were submitted" where other qualifying evidence is present. Approval or denial rests "on the type and quality of evidence submitted rather than assumptions about the failure to address different criteria".
They cannot deny in generalities. If the petitioner has failed to demonstrate eligibility, the officer "should not merely make general assertions regarding this failure" but "must articulate the specific reasons". The same applies to requests for evidence, where the guidance says officers should explain the deficiencies and, if possible, give examples of persuasive evidence, because "merely restating the evidentiary requirements or stating that the evidence submitted is insufficient does not clarify to the petitioner how to overcome the deficiencies". The most common RFE reasons covers reading an RFE as the map it is meant to be.
Everything in the record is considered. At this step officers "consider any potentially relevant evidence in the record, even if such evidence does not fit one of the above regulatory criteria or was not presented as comparable evidence". So strong material that fits no criterion cleanly is not wasted; it belongs in the file with an explanation of why it matters.
Writing the argument
The obligation to explain is explicit: the petitioner "must explain the significance of the submitted evidence, and how it demonstrates that the person has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in their field of expertise."
- A claim about standing, stated plainly, rather than a list of criteria met
- Comparative context for each strand: relative to what, in which field, from what source
- The field defined, since "top of the field" is meaningless until the field is
- Evidence of recognition arriving unprompted, which is what acclaim looks like from outside
- The strongest material foregrounded. The guidance notes a person "may be stronger in one particular evidentiary area than in others"
- Anything relevant that fits no criterion, with an explanation of why it bears on standing
The temptation is to make this section a summary. Resist it. A recap of step one tells the officer nothing they have not already read, and leaves the actual question unanswered. Building an EB-1A evidence index covers keeping this section structurally separate from the criterion sections.
Sources
All accessed 24 August 2026.
- USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2. The two-step review and the final merits determination, source of every quotation and of the factors table above.
- 8 CFR 204.5(h), eCFR. The definition and the ten criteria.
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), the decision that established the two-step framework.
- USCIS, Employment-Based Immigration: First Preference EB-1.
We publish no h-index targets, impact factor thresholds, or citation counts here. The guidance ties all three to comparison within your own field rather than to fixed values.
This article describes the adjudication in general terms. It is not a substitute for advice from your attorney about your own case.
Frequently asked questions
What is the final merits determination?
It is the second step of the EB-1A review, where the officer evaluates all the evidence together, considering the petition in its entirety, to decide whether the person has sustained acclaim and is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.
Can you meet three criteria and still be denied?
Yes. USCIS states that objectively meeting the regulatory criteria in the first step alone does not establish that the person meets the requirements for the classification.
Does evidence outside the ten criteria count here?
Yes. At this step officers consider any potentially relevant evidence in the record, even if it does not fit one of the regulatory criteria or was not presented as comparable evidence.
Can an officer deny because a particular type of evidence is missing?
No. The guidance says an officer may not limit the kind of evidence they think should be submitted and deny on that basis, so long as other evidence meeting the requirements was provided.
What has to be in the petition for this stage?
An explicit argument about standing in the field, supported by comparative evidence, rather than a restatement of which criteria were satisfied. The guidance requires the petitioner to explain the significance of the evidence.
Green Card Guide AI is not a law firm and this article is not legal advice. It describes evidence-building strategy in general terms; your attorney determines what belongs in your petition and how it's argued.