A USEFUL STARTING POINT
An EB-1A case is not decided by counting criteria alone. The full record must show sustained national or international acclaim and a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the top of the field.
The short answer: three criteria open the second stage
The EB-1A regulation allows a petitioner to establish the initial evidence requirement through a one-time achievement, meaning a major internationally recognized award, or evidence meeting at least three of ten criteria. That count matters, but it does not end the inquiry. When a petition passes the first step, USCIS evaluates all the evidence together in what it calls the final merits determination.
At the second stage, the question is no longer limited to whether each record fits the wording of a criterion. USCIS considers whether the full record shows sustained national or international acclaim, recognition of the person’s achievements in the field, and the level of expertise associated with the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. Meeting three criteria therefore does not result in automatic approval.
Meeting a criterion and proving its weight are different questions
A record may help satisfy the wording of a criterion while carrying limited weight in the final merits review. An award may meet the awards criterion, for example, but its significance in the overall analysis depends on facts such as the award’s reputation, the competitive field, the selection process, and recognition beyond the awarding organization. Published material may meet its criterion while still requiring context about the outlet’s reach, the substance of the coverage, and what it shows about the person’s recognition.
The same care applies to judging, leading or critical roles, remuneration, and contributions to the field. Judging a competition or evaluating the work of other professionals may satisfy the applicable criterion. At final merits, however, context helps show the significance of that selection and how it relates to the person’s standing in the field. A leadership title also needs evidence of what the person actually did and of the organization’s distinguished reputation.
| Evidence | First stage | Final merits review |
|---|---|---|
| Award | Does it meet the awards criterion? | What do its selectivity, reputation, and reach show about the person’s acclaim? |
| Published material | Is it about the person and related to the person’s work, or does it discuss the work and identify the person’s role, in qualifying media? | Do the content and reach help show recognition in the field? |
| Judging | Did the person judge the work of others in the same or an allied field? | Why was the person selected, and what was the level of the work judged? |
| Leading or critical role | Do the role and the organization’s reputation meet the criterion? | What was the person’s actual impact, and how was it recognized? |
Sustained acclaim does not require an uninterrupted career
The statute requires sustained national or international acclaim. The USCIS Policy Manual explains that there is no fixed time period that controls every case and that a young person or someone early in a career may demonstrate sustained acclaim. The inquiry considers whether the person has maintained a comparable level of acclaim in the context of the career presented.
This makes the timeline important. A major earlier achievement may remain relevant, but the petition should explain what followed it. Later results, new responsibilities, invitations to judge others, independent coverage, remuneration, adoption of work, and other forms of recognition may help show continuity, depending on the field. Achievements should never be invented to fill a period. The goal is to explain the actual development of the career accurately.
The record should show significance, not just volume
A long petition is not necessarily a strong petition. Repeating the same claim in several letters, submitting screenshots without a source, or presenting numbers without a comparison may add volume without answering the legal question. For each important achievement, identify a reliable source and explain what it establishes, who recognized the work, the relevant context, and why the fact matters in the field.
Expert letters may help, especially when they explain facts that public records do not show. They are stronger when they identify how the writer knows the person’s work, provide concrete examples, and rely on verifiable records. General praise and legal conclusions without a factual basis are less useful than a specific explanation of impact, selectivity, or recognition.
Current USCIS guidance helps define the first stage
In October 2024, USCIS clarified specific points about the evidentiary criteria. Among other changes, it confirmed that a person’s receipt of a team award may be considered under the awards criterion and that past memberships may be considered under the membership criterion. USCIS also removed language suggesting that published material must, at the criterion stage, demonstrate the value of the person’s contributions.
Those clarifications do not eliminate the final merits review. They help determine whether evidence meets the corresponding criterion. USCIS still evaluates the record as a whole to decide whether the high EB-1A standard has been established. The two stages should not be confused, but the first should not be prepared without considering the second.
Hypothetical example: an athlete with four criteria
Imagine a Brazilian athlete who submits evidence of awards, published material, judging, and a critical role for a sports organization. At the first stage, USCIS concludes that four criteria are met. The analysis does not end there. For final merits, the record still needs to show the actual significance of the awards, the reach and substance of the media coverage, the level of the judging activity, and the impact of the athlete’s role in the organization.
If the documents also show recognition at different points in time, recent achievements, and distinguished standing relative to others in the sport, that evidence may strengthen the overall analysis. If every record comes from one local event and does not explain national or international acclaim, counting four criteria does not resolve that weakness. This example is hypothetical. It is not a client story and does not mean the athlete qualifies.
How to begin reviewing your case
Start with your résumé and select five to ten achievements that best represent your career. For each one, include a reliable link or record and answer: who recognized the work, when did it happen, what was its reach, and why does it matter in the field? Also describe what you plan to do in the United States and how that work continues in the same area of extraordinary ability.
You do not need to choose the criteria on your own or collect every letter before our first conversation. I personally review the facts, the strength of the evidence, and potential weaknesses. When you retain my office, I personally develop and carry out the strategy, prepare the petition and legal arguments, organize the evidence, file the case, and follow it through every stage. The EB-1A questionnaire is short and is only the starting point for that review.
Official sources
- INA § 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)
- 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h): extraordinary ability
- USCIS Policy Manual · Vol. 6, Part F, Chapter 2
- USCIS Policy Alert PA-2024-24 · Extraordinary Ability Criteria Clarification
General information, not individual legal advice. Eligibility depends on the facts and applicable law. Contacting Eduardo does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.