USCIS Policy
How USCIS Applies the Totality of Evidence Standard After the Kazarian Two-Step Review in O-1A Cases
Satisfying three O-1A criteria at step one does not guarantee approval. The Kazarian two-step framework requires that the totality of the evidence also demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. This guide explains how adjudicators apply that final analysis and how to structure a petition to pass it.
The Kazarian framework and what it changed for O-1A adjudication
The Ninth Circuit's 2010 decision in Kazarian v. USCIS established a two-step analytical framework for O-1A extraordinary ability petitions that USCIS subsequently adopted policy-wide. Before Kazarian, adjudicators sometimes conflated the question of whether a petitioner satisfied the enumerated criteria with the question of whether the petitioner had demonstrated extraordinary ability. The Kazarian framework separated those two inquiries: step one asks whether the petitioner has met the minimum threshold of satisfying at least three of the eight regulatory criteria; step two asks whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
The practical consequence of this framework is that satisfying three criteria is a necessary but not sufficient condition for approval. A petition that documents criterion satisfaction — say, a high salary, a published scholarly article, and a single expert opinion letter characterizing the petitioner as a peer reviewer — may clear step one while failing step two if the overall record does not convincingly demonstrate extraordinary ability. USCIS adjudicators and the AAO are expected to evaluate whether the weight and quality of the evidence, taken together, shows that the petitioner has risen to the very top of the field. This holistic assessment at step two is where many borderline petitions are denied.
The Kazarian framework also elevated the importance of the supporting brief's role in framing the totality analysis. A petition that lists exhibits without synthesizing them into a coherent narrative leaves the totality assessment entirely to the adjudicator, which introduces risk. Attorneys drafting O-1A petitions in the post-Kazarian era generally include a dedicated section of the brief addressing the totality question explicitly — explaining why the combination of the petitioner's accomplishments, field standing, and recognition demonstrates extraordinary ability even beyond what any individual criterion documents.
What the two-step review requires at each stage
At step one, the adjudicator evaluates whether the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence meeting at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). This evaluation is criterion-by-criterion: for each category of evidence, does the submitted documentation satisfy the regulatory description of what qualifies? The standard at step one is whether the evidence qualifies as a type that can satisfy the criterion, not whether the evidence is maximally impressive. A single published scholarly article in a recognized journal satisfies the scholarly articles criterion at step one, even if the article is not highly cited and the journal is not a flagship publication.
Step two requires a fundamentally different analysis. The adjudicator reviews the totality of the evidence — all criteria that have been shown to be met, as well as any additional corroborating material — and asks whether that aggregate record demonstrates that the petitioner is recognized as one of the small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of the field. This is a comparative and contextual judgment. The adjudicator considers the caliber of the awards received, the significance of the publications, the prestige of the employers or institutions, and the quality of the expert opinions offered. The totality assessment evaluates how much weight those pieces of evidence carry in context.
USCIS officers conducting step two are instructed to consider the overall quality and volume of the evidence rather than simply counting criterion checkboxes. An officer who finds that the petitioner has satisfied exactly three criteria with marginal evidence in each — a low-impact journal article, a salary that barely clears the high-salary threshold, and an expert letter from someone outside the petitioner's immediate subfield — is expected to find that the totality does not establish extraordinary ability even though each criterion has been technically met. This is the core operation of the two-step framework in practice, and understanding it is essential to building a petition that passes both stages.
Evidence that survives the totality analysis
Evidence that carries substantial weight at step two tends to be independently verifiable, specific about the petitioner's contributions, and comparative in nature. An expert letter that explains specifically what the petitioner contributed to a particular body of research, why that contribution was significant relative to the state of the field at the time, and how the petitioner's standing compares to others who have worked in the same area is far more persuasive at step two than a generalized statement about the petitioner's talent. Letters that name the petitioner's specific papers, identify the journals or conferences, and explain in technical terms why the contribution mattered give the adjudicator substantive material to evaluate.
Awards and recognition from institutions with known prestige markers carry weight proportional to the institution's standing and the competitiveness of the award. NSF CAREER awards, NIH R01 grants awarded on initial review, MacArthur Fellowships, IEEE or ACM Fellow designation, and National Academy membership all represent recognition that adjudicators and the AAO can verify as indicators of standing at the top of a field. These are powerful at step two because they represent peer-based recognition — people already at the top of the field determining that the petitioner belongs among them — which is precisely what the extraordinary ability standard describes.
A strong publication record with documented citation impact is similarly durable at step two. A petitioner whose papers have been cited extensively by third-party researchers demonstrates that the field has found the work valuable enough to build upon — a concrete, verifiable indicator of contribution. When the citations come from recognized researchers at recognized institutions, the inference of significance is stronger. The step two analysis benefits from any evidence that shows the petitioner's work or standing is recognized by people who have no personal relationship with the petitioner and no stake in the petition outcome.
Evidence that fails the totality step despite criterion satisfaction
The most common pattern in totality-step denials and RFEs is a record that satisfies criteria at step one through technically qualifying but marginally strong evidence, leaving the step two record thin. A high salary documented at the seventy-fifth percentile may satisfy the criterion at step one — USCIS has accepted various threshold interpretations of 'high salary' — but a salary at the seventy-fifth percentile, combined with two other marginal criteria, does not suggest the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The totality looks at each piece of evidence in light of the whole record, and a collection of floor-level criterion satisfactions rarely adds up to extraordinary ability.
Expert opinion letters that rely on personal relationships rather than observed record also carry limited weight at step two. A letter from the petitioner's dissertation advisor, a former colleague, or a current employer that praises the petitioner without independently supporting that praise with reference to third-party recognition — publications, citations, awards received outside the petitioner's own institution — does not give the adjudicator confidence that the assessment is objective. The AAO has noted in multiple decisions that expert letters are evaluated for what they say, not just who says them. A detailed letter from a moderately prominent researcher is often more useful than a brief letter from a highly prominent one that contains no specific facts.
Membership-based criterion satisfactions that rely on membership in general scientific associations rather than elite, selective bodies are often discounted at step two. Being a member of large professional organizations is common among working professionals in a field and does not alone demonstrate that the petitioner has risen to the very top. A petition that argues membership in a large association as a primary criterion satisfaction, without demonstrating that the membership was granted specifically in recognition of the petitioner's outstanding achievement, is at risk of failing step two even if it clears step one.
Structuring the petition for the totality review
The most effective approach to the step two analysis is to address it explicitly in a dedicated section of the supporting brief after the criterion-by-criterion analysis. That section should take a step back from the individual criteria and synthesize the record: the petitioner has achieved specific things in the field, which are significant for identified reasons, and that achievement is corroborated by documented third-party recognition. The synthesis should draw connections between the different categories of evidence — showing how a high citation count reinforces the originality claim, how a competitive award reinforces the expert letters' characterizations, and how the combined record demonstrates that the petitioner is recognized at the level the extraordinary ability standard describes.
When the criterion-level evidence is strong but not uniformly so — three criteria well-documented, others partially addressed — the totality section should explain what weight to give the strongest criteria and why those criteria, in combination, are sufficient. It should also acknowledge weaker criteria honestly rather than overstating them; adjudicators are experienced readers who assess credibility based on whether the brief appears calibrated or simply advocacy-driven. A brief that treats every exhibit as equally compelling undermines its own credibility and reduces the impact of genuinely strong evidence.
Additional corroborating evidence beyond the eight regulatory criteria can support the totality analysis. The regulations describe the eight criteria as illustrative rather than exhaustive, and petitioners may submit comparable evidence — coverage of the petitioner's work in mainstream press or policy publications, adoption of the petitioner's research by government or industry — that does not fit neatly into any single criterion but adds texture to the overall record. This evidence belongs in the totality section, framed as context for why the criterion-level showings collectively demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Auditing the petition for Kazarian compliance before filing
A Kazarian compliance audit asks two questions for each criterion addressed in the petition. First, does the evidence submitted clearly qualify under the regulatory language at step one — is the document type appropriate, is the source credible, does the evidence speak to the criterion's requirements? Second, what weight will this evidence carry at step two when the adjudicator considers it alongside everything else in the record? If a criterion is satisfied only by thin or marginal evidence, the audit should identify that and consider whether to supplement the exhibit before filing or to shift emphasis to other, stronger criteria.
The totality section of the brief should be drafted only after the criterion exhibits are assembled and the audit is complete. The synthesis must be honest about what the record shows: a brief that claims the evidence demonstrates extraordinary ability without engaging with weaknesses in the record does not serve the petitioner well. The AAO's published decisions are useful reference material for understanding what kinds of totality analyses are persuasive — they show both successful arguments and the specific reasoning patterns that lead to denial, helping practitioners calibrate their briefs against a realistic standard.
Before filing, the petition should be reviewed by someone who has not been involved in its preparation, to check whether the step two narrative is coherent to a reader without prior knowledge of the petitioner's background. An adjudicator reviewing the petition will not have read the petitioner's curriculum vitae, spoken to the petitioner's colleagues, or attended the petitioner's presentations. The brief and exhibits must build the case from the ground up. If a reader with no prior knowledge can follow the argument from criterion satisfaction to totality conclusion and find it persuasive, the petition is ready to file.
What we typically gather for this kind of case
| Document | Where to source | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed publications | Web of Science / Scopus exports | Anchors original-contributions and authorship criteria |
| Citation analysis | Google Scholar profile + ESI top-1% data | Quantifies major significance in the field |
| Salary benchmark | BLS OEWS for SOC code + locality | Documents high-salary criterion at 90th-percentile or above |
| Critical-role letters | Direct supervisor + program director | Establishes role's importance, not just title |
What we see go wrong, again and again
- 01Treating extraordinary ability as a credentials checklist rather than a story of field-wide impact.
- 02Submitting bibliometric data (h-index, citation counts) without explaining what makes those numbers high relative to peers in the same sub-field.
- 03Relying on letters from collaborators or co-authors rather than independent experts who can speak to influence.
See if you qualify
Lando reviews your background against the O-1 visa criteria and tells you honestly where you stand. Free, no commitment.