USCIS Policy
How USCIS Evaluates the Totality of Evidence Standard for O-1A Petitions Under Kazarian
The Kazarian two-step framework governs how USCIS evaluates every O-1A petition, but practitioners still see RFEs that conflate the threshold and merits phases. This guide explains how the standard works in practice and how to build a petition designed to succeed at both steps.
What the Kazarian standard changed and why it matters
Before the Ninth Circuit's 2010 decision in Kazarian v. USCIS, adjudicators sometimes conflated the question of whether evidence fell within a regulatory criterion with the question of whether the petitioner was extraordinary. The Kazarian decision imposed a two-step analytical framework that separated these inquiries. Step one asks only whether the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence for at least three of the ten O-1A criteria. Step two then asks, in a holistic final merits determination, whether the totality of the evidence establishes sustained national or international acclaim and extraordinary ability. Every O-1A petition filed today is evaluated under this framework.
The practical significance of Kazarian is that winning at step one is necessary but not sufficient. A petitioner who satisfies three criteria does not automatically receive the visa; the officer must still find, looking at all the evidence together, that the overall record rises to the statutory standard. This means that a petition built around minimum criterion satisfaction — just enough to check the box for three criteria — may fail the final merits determination even without being denied at step one. Understanding how officers approach step two is essential for constructing a petition that actually succeeds.
USCIS codified the Kazarian framework in a 2010 policy memorandum and has since incorporated it into the Policy Manual. The framework applies to all O-1A petitions regardless of which service center adjudicates them. When reviewing an RFE or a denial, the first step in diagnosing the problem is identifying whether the officer's concerns were step-one concerns (evidence did not qualify under the criterion) or step-two concerns (evidence qualified but the overall picture did not establish extraordinariness). The remedies for these two types of problems are different.
Step one of Kazarian — the threshold criterion analysis
At step one, the officer determines whether the petitioner has submitted evidence that, if taken at face value, would satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria. The officer is not supposed to weigh the quality or strength of the evidence at step one — that analysis belongs at step two. The step-one question is categorical: does this evidence fall within the criterion? Awards that qualify as prizes in the criterion, salary evidence that qualifies as high remuneration, letters from expert witnesses that qualify as critical role attestations — these are step-one determinations about whether the evidence fits the category.
RFEs issued at step one typically argue that the submitted evidence does not actually fall within the criterion being claimed. A common example involves the scholarly articles criterion: the officer may argue that conference abstracts, technical reports, or preprints do not constitute publications in professional journals or major trade publications within the meaning of the regulation. Another common step-one RFE involves the awards criterion, where the officer argues that the award cited was not nationally or internationally recognized as a prize for excellence in the field. These are questions about the type of evidence submitted, not about how impressive the petitioner is.
The response to a step-one RFE must focus on the threshold question — demonstrating that the evidence fits within the criterion's definition, not on arguing that the petitioner is extraordinary. Mixing these arguments muddles the response and can confuse the analysis on appeal. If the officer is wrong about what qualifies as a scholarly article, the response must explain the correct definition and show how the petitioner's publications meet it. Adding general praise for the petitioner's accomplishments does not address the step-one deficiency and may distract from the precise argument that would resolve it.
Step two — the final merits determination and totality of evidence
Step two is where the officer assesses the overall picture. The question is whether the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim in the field and is among the small percentage who has risen to the very top. Officers are instructed to consider all evidence submitted, not merely the evidence submitted under the claimed criteria. This means that evidence that failed to satisfy a criterion at step one may still be considered at step two as part of the holistic evaluation. A grant that was not prestigious enough to establish the awards criterion can still contribute to the overall picture of a researcher with substantial funding support.
The final merits determination requires the officer to exercise judgment rather than apply a mechanical test. USCIS Policy Manual guidance notes that the officer should consider the caliber of achievements, the recognition from peers, and whether the evidence as a whole establishes that the petitioner is in the top tier of the field. A petitioner who narrowly satisfies three criteria but has no evidence beyond those narrow showings will face a harder step-two evaluation than a petitioner who broadly exceeds multiple criteria and has substantial corroborating evidence of field-wide recognition.
The totality standard means that strong evidence in one area can offset thinner evidence in another, up to a point. A petitioner with a genuinely exceptional showing on original contributions — work that has been widely cited, replicated, and built upon by others — may satisfy the step-two standard even if the awards and salary evidence is modest. Conversely, a petitioner who has won many awards but whose work has not generated significant scholarly discussion may have difficulty at step two because the record, taken as a whole, does not show that the field regards the petitioner as extraordinary rather than simply successful.
How USCIS applies the standard in practice
In practice, officers at the Texas Service Center and Nebraska Service Center apply Kazarian with some variation in how they describe the step-two analysis in their decisions. Some denials and RFEs conflate step one and step two by simultaneously arguing that the evidence does not fit the criterion and that it does not establish extraordinariness. The distinction matters because the appropriate response differs: a step-one deficiency requires showing that the evidence falls within the regulatory category, while a step-two deficiency requires showing that the totality of the evidence meets the statutory standard.
USCIS has acknowledged in policy guidance that step two should not simply reapply the same individual-criterion analysis with a higher bar. The purpose of the final merits determination is holistic evaluation, not a stricter version of step one. When an officer's step-two analysis reads like a repetition of the step-one analysis with the word 'extraordinary' substituted for the criterion definition, that analysis is methodologically incorrect and vulnerable to challenge on appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office. Petitioners who receive a decision structured this way should flag the methodological error explicitly in any appeal.
Officers are also expected to give appropriate weight to expert testimony at step two. Letters from senior figures in the field who explain why the petitioner's contributions are significant, why recognition the petitioner has received is meaningful, and how the petitioner's standing compares to others in the specialty can directly support the final merits determination. These letters should address the step-two question — the petitioner's extraordinary standing — rather than simply narrating accomplishments, because step two calls for comparative evaluation, not résumé summary.
Common failure patterns under Kazarian analysis
The most common failure pattern at step two is a record that satisfies criteria technically but does not show field-wide impact. A petitioner may establish three criteria with evidence that checks the regulatory boxes — some peer review, some listed publications, a salary in the upper range — without any evidence that others in the field have engaged with, built on, or recognized this person's work specifically. The record shows activity and output but not acclaim. USCIS's step-two analysis will typically note that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the field regards them as extraordinary, even if they have met the threshold number of criteria.
A second failure pattern involves evidence that is thin at step one but was presumably expected to compensate through volume at step two. Ten minor awards, none of which is nationally recognized, do not aggregate into one major award for step-two purposes. The final merits determination looks at quality and significance, not quantity. A record built on many weak entries in multiple criteria may fail step two even if each criterion was technically satisfied at step one.
A third pattern involves a mismatch between the claimed field and the evidence. A petitioner who claims extraordinary ability in computational neuroscience but whose evidence is concentrated in general computer science conferences and publications faces a step-two problem: the record does not show extraordinary ability in the specific field where the claim is made. The Kazarian framework requires the totality of evidence to establish extraordinary ability in the petitioner's area of claim, and a diffuse record that spans multiple specialties may fail to establish excellence in any of them with sufficient specificity.
Strategic implications for petition preparation
Preparing a petition with Kazarian in mind means building two distinct arguments: one for step one that demonstrates criterion satisfaction, and one for step two that demonstrates extraordinary standing as a holistic matter. The cover letter should be structured to address both steps explicitly, making clear to the officer which evidence is being offered for criterion satisfaction and which evidence is offered for the overall showing of extraordinariness. A cover letter that simply lists accomplishments without connecting them to the two-step analysis leaves the step-two argument implicit, which is a risk given that officers may not draw the connections themselves.
For step two, the petition should include evidence that speaks directly to comparative standing: citation counts compared to field averages, evidence that the petitioner's work is taught or used by others, descriptions from expert witnesses of how the petitioner's reputation compares to that of other figures in the field, and any evidence of field-wide impact such as policy adoption, industry implementation, or sustained scholarly engagement over time. These are the types of evidence that distinguish a petition that merely satisfies criteria from one that establishes extraordinary ability.
When a prior petition has been denied on step-two grounds, the response strategy must address the officer's specific articulation of why the totality of evidence was insufficient — not simply submit more of the same. If the officer found that the record showed significant accomplishments but not extraordinariness, the new filing or appeal must explain why the standard is met, using comparative evidence and expert testimony that directly addresses the gap the officer identified. Adding more papers or more awards to a record that has already been evaluated and found insufficient at step two rarely changes the outcome without also changing the analytical framing of what the evidence establishes.
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.