The Kazarian Two-Step: How USCIS Really Evaluates Your EB-1A Petition

The Case That Changed EB-1A Forever

In 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115. The case itself involved a physicist from Armenia whose EB-1A petition had been denied. The Ninth Circuit's ruling did not simply resolve his case — it established a mandatory two-step analytical framework that USCIS is now required to apply to every EB-1A petition filed in the United States.

Before Kazarian, USCIS adjudicators had significant discretion in how they evaluated EB-1A evidence. Some treated meeting three criteria as essentially sufficient. Others applied a more holistic review but without a structured framework. The result was inconsistency — similar profiles could produce very different outcomes depending on which officer reviewed the petition.

After Kazarian, the framework is fixed. Every EB-1A petition must survive two sequential evaluations. Understanding what those evaluations require — and what they do not — is the foundation of any well-prepared petition.

Step 1: The Threshold Analysis

Step 1 asks a specific, evidence-focused question: Does the submitted evidence actually satisfy the regulatory description for each claimed criterion?

This is a quality-control step on the evidence itself. For each criterion you claim, USCIS evaluates whether what you submitted is genuinely the type of evidence the regulation contemplates.

For Criterion 1 (prizes or awards), Step 1 asks: Is this actually a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field, or is it a local recognition, an internal company award, or a participation recognition?

For Criterion 4 (judging), Step 1 asks: Did this person actually participate as a judge of others' work in a formal, professional capacity, or was this informal mentoring or internal review?

For Criterion 8 (critical role), Step 1 asks: Is this organization actually distinguished, and was this role actually leading or critical — or is this a senior title at a mid-tier company where the role's criticality has not been documented?

Step 1 is the gatekeeping function. If your evidence does not genuinely satisfy the regulatory description, USCIS denies the criterion at Step 1. You need at least three criteria to clear Step 1 to proceed to Step 2.

What Step 1 Is Not

Step 1 is not where USCIS evaluates whether you are extraordinary. It is not where they assess the totality of your career. It is not where they decide whether you are at the top of your field. Those questions belong to Step 2.

The distinction matters because a very common — and very avoidable — error in petition writing is trying to make the totality argument inside the criterion sections. If your Criterion 5 section spends three paragraphs explaining why your contribution demonstrates extraordinary ability, you are answering Step 2 questions in a Step 1 section. The criterion section should focus on demonstrating that the evidence satisfies the regulatory description. Save the totality for Step 2.

Step 2: The Final Merits Determination

After clearing Step 1 with three or more criteria, USCIS proceeds to Step 2: Does the totality of the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of their field?

This is the holistic evaluation. It is not a second pass through the individual criteria. It is a synthesis: taken together — all the criteria, all the evidence, the full picture of this person's career and recognition — does this record demonstrate extraordinary ability at the top of the field?

Step 2 is where many petitions die. Wei Zhang's petition cleared four criteria at Step 1 and was denied at Step 2 because the petition never made the totality argument. USCIS's decision stated: "The record establishes that the petitioner has met the evidentiary requirements for several criteria, but the petitioner has not demonstrated that this evidence, considered as a whole, establishes sustained national or international acclaim at the level contemplated by the statute."

The denial was factually correct. Wei had four criteria. He had not argued why those four criteria together demonstrated extraordinary ability rather than above-average professional achievement.

What USCIS Is Actually Asking at Step 2

The Step 2 question is this: "Does this person's record tell the story of someone who is genuinely among the small percentage at the very top of their field — or does it tell the story of a very good professional whose achievements, while respectable, do not rise to the extraordinary ability standard?"

These are different narratives, and they require different evidence selection and different argument construction.

Consider two hypothetical profiles:

Profile A: Published 20 papers (no percentile context), received an award (prestige undocumented), served on one program committee, earns a good salary (no peer comparison). Met three criteria technically. Totality story: "This person has done a lot of professional things." Step 2 outcome: likely denial.

Profile B: Published 8 papers that have been cited 900 times (top 5% for field and career stage per ESI norms), received an NSF CAREER Award (selected from 1,200 applications, 14% award rate, peer-reviewed selection panel), served on the SOSP program committee for three consecutive years (35 members globally), earns $720,000 (98th percentile vs. BLS OES for occupation and MSA). Met four criteria with specificity and context. Totality story: "This person's record of recognition — the citations, the grant competition, the conference committee selection, the compensation — paints a consistent picture of someone at the very top of their field." Step 2 outcome: likely approval.

The underlying careers may be similar in actual achievement. The difference is contextualization and the ability to synthesize evidence into a coherent totality narrative.

Why Three Criteria Is Necessary But Not Sufficient

This is the single most important thing to understand about the Kazarian framework, and the point most applicants initially miss.

Meeting three criteria satisfies Step 1. It does not satisfy Step 2. Step 2 requires the totality to demonstrate extraordinary ability — and three marginal criteria do not do that even if they technically clear the threshold.

This is why the quality and depth of your evidence matters far more than the number of criteria you claim. Three deeply evidenced criteria with strong contextual documentation and a compelling totality argument will succeed where six thin criteria with no totality argument will fail.

It also means that if your evidence for a criterion is genuinely weak — the award has unclear prestige, the judging role was informal, the salary comparison uses the wrong peer group — you are better off not claiming that criterion and strengthening the three where your evidence is genuinely compelling.

How to Write a Petition That Survives Both Steps

For Step 1

In each criterion section of your petition brief:

• Quote the regulatory text
• State specifically what evidence you are presenting and why it satisfies that regulatory description
• Cite exhibits by label for every factual claim
• Pre-empt the most likely Step 1 challenge for that criterion

Do not make the totality argument in the criterion sections. Keep Step 1 and Step 2 arguments in their proper places.

For Step 2

The final merits section of your petition brief is dedicated to Step 2. It should:

Open by acknowledging the two-step framework. "Under the Kazarian framework, having established that the petitioner satisfies the evidentiary requirements of four regulatory criteria, this section addresses whether the totality of the record demonstrates sustained national and international acclaim."

Synthesize across criteria. Not: "The petitioner has received an award, has published articles, has served as a judge, and earns a high salary." Instead: "The petitioner's citation record (900 citations, top 5% for career stage) documents that their scholarly contributions have been recognized by the global research community as significant. The NSF CAREER Award provides independent, competitive confirmation that a national peer review panel evaluated their research program as among the most promising in the field. The SOSP program committee service documents that the top systems researchers globally view the petitioner as qualified to evaluate the field's best work. The 98th-percentile compensation documents that the market for the petitioner's expertise confirms their extraordinary standing at the organizational level. Taken together, these indicators — each independently corroborating the others — paint a consistent, coherent picture of sustained national and international acclaim."

Name the field and the peer comparison explicitly. "Among software systems researchers at the equivalent career stage globally, the petitioner's record of achievement places them in a small cohort whose recognition is externally documented, independently confirmed, and sustained over time."

Conclude directly. "The totality of this evidence establishes, clearly and convincingly, that the petitioner has risen to the very top of the field and possesses sustained national and international acclaim within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)."

The Role of Expert Declarations in Step 2

Expert declarations serve a unique function in the Step 2 analysis. Individual exhibits address specific criteria at Step 1. Expert declarations — particularly those that explicitly address the totality of the petitioner's career, not just individual contributions — provide the human synthesis that USCIS needs for Step 2.

A declaration that says "Dr. X's body of work, taken as a whole, places her among the top 5% of researchers I have encountered in 30 years in this field" is a Step 2 argument delivered by a credentialed expert. It is evidence of extraordinary ability at the totality level. Include at least one or two declarations that specifically address the totality question, not just specific criteria.

Lumova Is Built Around Kazarian

Lumova's analysis engine is specifically structured around the Kazarian two-step framework. When you describe your evidence, Lumova evaluates it at Step 1 (does this evidence genuinely satisfy the regulatory description?) and Step 2 (does the combination of evidence tell a coherent story of extraordinary ability?). The feedback it provides reflects both layers.

Ask Lumova to walk you through the Kazarian analysis for your specific profile.

Run your Kazarian analysis →

(Lumova is educational only, not legal advice.)

Official Resources

• USCIS Policy Memo on Kazarian Framework
• USCIS Policy Manual — EB-1A Standard and Two-Step Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the "final merits determination" in simple terms?

After USCIS confirms you have evidence for at least three criteria (Step 1), they then ask: does your overall record prove you are truly extraordinary — at the top of your field? That is the final merits determination. It is a holistic, synthesizing judgment, not a checkbox.

Can I win Step 2 with only three criteria?

Yes. The number of criteria is not what drives Step 2 — the depth, quality, and contextual documentation of the evidence is. Three deeply evidenced criteria with a compelling totality argument can beat six marginally documented criteria with no totality argument every time.

Why did USCIS deny me even though I met six criteria?

The Kazarian framework allows USCIS to deny at Step 2 even when multiple criteria are satisfied at Step 1. This happens when the evidence, taken as a whole, does not persuade the officer that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field. The most common cause: no explicit totality argument in the petition brief. USCIS does not construct that argument for you.

Does meeting the criteria for O-1A mean I will pass Step 1 for EB-1A?

Not automatically. O-1A uses a lower standard ("distinction") than EB-1A ("extraordinary ability / top of field"). Evidence that was sufficient for O-1A may or may not satisfy the EB-1A Step 1 criteria standard, and the Step 2 bar is higher for EB-1A than for O-1A. An approved O-1A is useful corroborating evidence in an EB-1A petition, but does not substitute for EB-1A-level evidence.

Does the Kazarian framework apply outside the Ninth Circuit?

USCIS adopted the Kazarian two-step analysis as national policy through a 2010 policy memo, making it applicable to all EB-1A petitions nationwide regardless of where the petitioner lives or where the petition is filed. The framework is not limited to the Ninth Circuit's geographic jurisdiction.