USCIS Policy
Understanding the Kazarian Two-Step Framework for O-1 Petition Adjudication in 2026
The Kazarian two-step framework fundamentally changed O-1A adjudication by requiring USCIS to separate the threshold evidence analysis from a holistic final merits determination. Understanding both steps — and how to build a petition that satisfies each — is essential for any O-1A filing in 2026.
The Kazarian framework and what it decides
In 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Kazarian v. USCIS, establishing a two-step analytical framework that fundamentally restructured how USCIS adjudicates O-1A extraordinary ability petitions. The decision invalidated USCIS practice of conflating quality and quantity of evidence within the initial regulatory threshold analysis. Under Kazarian, adjudicators must first determine whether the petitioner has satisfied the minimum number of evidentiary criteria at a basic level, then conduct a separate final merits determination that weighs all evidence holistically to assess whether the petitioner truly possesses extraordinary ability. Failing to understand how these two steps interact leads to petition drafting errors that are difficult to correct on appeal.
The practical consequence of the Kazarian framework is that the evidentiary strategy for an O-1A petition must operate on two simultaneous levels. At the threshold level, the petition must demonstrate that the petitioner meets at least three of the eight regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). The petition cannot simply collect three technical check-marks and stop — USCIS will proceed to a final merits review where the quality and persuasive weight of the entire record determine approval or denial. Many petitions that pass the threshold are denied at the final merits stage because the evidentiary file was assembled as a minimum-compliance exercise rather than a persuasive case for exceptional professional standing.
USCIS adopted the Kazarian framework through its Policy Manual, which codifies the two-step analysis as agency policy applicable to O-1A adjudications nationwide. The Nebraska and California service centers both apply it, and the AAO reviews denied cases under the same standard on appeal. In 2026, the framework remains the operative template for O-1A adjudication, including for petitions filed under premium processing timelines. Understanding the mechanics of both steps — what triggers a clean pass at threshold and what builds a persuasive final merits case — is the core drafting challenge for any O-1A filing.
How step one functions in threshold analysis
Step one of the Kazarian analysis requires the petitioner to show that evidence has been submitted for each regulatory criterion being claimed and that such evidence satisfies the plain regulatory language at a threshold level. For the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii)(B)(4), a threshold pass requires documentation that the petitioner participated as a judge or evaluator of others' work in the same or an allied field. An invitation letter from a peer-reviewed journal confirming editorial board service, or an invitation letter from a national funding body confirming a grant review panel assignment, typically satisfies this inquiry. The adjudicator is not yet weighing how important the role was — only whether the criterion has been factually met.
A key principle from Kazarian is that the adjudicator cannot, at step one, require evidence to demonstrate a level of quality relevant only at step two. For example, under the scholarly articles criterion, the petitioner must show published articles in scholarly journals or major trade publications. An adjudicator applying step one correctly cannot deny satisfaction of that criterion on the ground that citation counts are insufficient — that is a step-two quality assessment, not a step-one factual determination. The Kazarian decision specifically rejected this conflation. When RFEs reflect improper step-one reasoning by asking whether evidence demonstrates extraordinary ability rather than whether it satisfies a criterion's factual requirements, petitioners can challenge the framing directly in the response.
The three-criterion minimum applies to O-1A petitions under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), which requires satisfaction of at least three of the eight listed criteria, or in the alternative receipt of a major internationally recognized award. O-1B petitions follow a similar structure under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv), requiring satisfaction of at least one of the six listed criteria plus demonstration of a leading or critical role. The two-step framework, while originating in the O-1A context, has been applied by analogy to O-1B adjudications, and USCIS's Policy Manual incorporates the same two-step structure for extraordinary achievement determinations applicable to O-1B arts and entertainment petitions.
Evidence that clears step one cleanly
Certain evidence categories are well-established as threshold-satisfying under step one when documented correctly. For the awards criterion, a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field satisfies step one when accompanied by documentation of the award program, the selection process, and the scope of the conferring organization. The award need not be the most prestigious in the field — it must be recognized at the national or international level, not merely institutional or local. Fellowship programs of professional learned societies, named awards from national professional associations, and competitive grant designations that carry public prestige in the relevant academic or industry community have been accepted at threshold without controversy in well-documented petitions.
For the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii)(B)(5), threshold satisfaction generally requires expert declarations from specialists in the field attesting that the petitioner's specific contributions — patents, methodologies, published findings, software tools — have influenced practice, scholarship, or technology development. At step one, the adjudicator asks whether submitted evidence identifies contributions and explains their significance; step-two analysis then assesses the magnitude and field-wide impact of those contributions. A petition that submits declaration letters identifying specific contributions by name, describing how those contributions changed how other practitioners work, and explaining why the petitioner's role was distinct from routine research employment will typically clear the threshold inquiry without triggering an RFE.
The press criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii)(B)(3) can be among the easiest to satisfy at step one in fields with active trade or mainstream media coverage. Published material in newspapers, professional journals, trade publications, or online media about the petitioner in relation to their work — as distinguished from material authored by the petitioner — satisfies the factual threshold when the publication qualifies as a professional publication or major media outlet. A single qualifying article can technically clear this criterion at step one, though the step-two analysis will weigh the number, quality, and reach of publications much more closely. The petition should include English translations or certified summaries of any non-English publications to avoid step-one rejections on procedural grounds.
Where petitions fail step one
The most common step-one failure is submitting evidence that satisfies a different criterion than the one being claimed. A petitioner who submits letters from supervisors praising their work as support for the original contributions criterion has technically failed at step one, because supervisor praise does not establish that contributions have been recognized as significant by the broader field — only independent expert attestation does. Similarly, submitting participation in a conference panel as support for the judging criterion fails if the conference was structured for attendees to discuss research rather than for the petitioner to evaluate others' submitted work. Each item of evidence must be matched precisely to the criterion it supports, with a clear argument for why it satisfies that criterion's regulatory language.
Evidence of institutional employment is regularly confused with evidence satisfying the critical role criterion. Working at a prestigious employer does not itself establish a critical role within that organization. The critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii)(B)(8) requires that the petitioner hold or have held a leading or critical role at a distinguished organization, which USCIS interprets as requiring documentation that the specific role was of singular importance — not that the role was performed competently at a reputable employer. A position description, an organizational chart showing the petitioner's place in the hierarchy, and declarations from senior leadership identifying the petitioner's specific contributions to the organization's direction are all necessary components of a threshold-satisfying critical role exhibit.
Evidence submitted without context for how it relates to a claimed criterion often triggers RFEs that could have been avoided. An AAO panel membership letter submitted without explanation of the panel's membership criteria, scope of review, and the petitioner's standing within the field that merited the invitation may be dismissed as insufficient at threshold — not because the evidence is weak but because the adjudicator cannot determine what criterion it is meant to support. Every evidentiary exhibit should be paired with a brief section that states the criterion being supported, identifies the exhibit, and explains in one to three sentences why the exhibit satisfies the criterion's factual requirements. This discipline eliminates the most common category of preventable RFEs.
Step two and the final merits review
Once step one is cleared — once the adjudicator determines that the petitioner has submitted evidence satisfying at least three criteria — Kazarian requires a separate final merits determination in which all evidence is weighed together to decide whether the petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability. This is a holistic assessment, not an algorithmic one. An adjudicator conducting a proper step-two analysis considers the totality of evidence in the record: the strength of awards, the breadth of press coverage, the quality and quantity of publications, the prestige of organizations in which the petitioner held a critical role, and the field significance of original contributions. The combination of evidence across all criteria must present a coherent picture of someone operating at the very top of the field.
Step two is where many technically adequate petitions fail. A petition that satisfies the minimum three criteria with thin evidence — one regional award, a single published article, and board membership in a local professional association — may pass step one but fail the final merits determination because the holistic record does not support a conclusion that the petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field. The standard for extraordinary ability is not merely demonstrated competence — it is recognition sustained nationally or internationally across a career, which requires an evidence file that shows both breadth and depth. Step two favors petitions where multiple criteria are satisfied with strong evidence rather than petitions that barely clear the minimum count.
The AAO has emphasized in published decisions that step-two analysis is fact-specific and cannot be reduced to a formula. A petitioner with four criterion-satisfying evidence categories and strong documentation in each may be approved where a petitioner with six categories and weak documentation is denied, because the step-two inquiry is about the weight of evidence rather than the count of criteria satisfied. Effective petitions structure the step-two argument explicitly in the support brief, drawing the connection between each item of evidence and the professional standing it reflects, explaining what it means within the field to have received a particular award or been invited to a specific review panel, and synthesizing the overall record into a narrative an adjudicator can follow without independent knowledge of the specialty.
Building a Kazarian-proof petition
A petition that navigates the Kazarian framework well treats evidence assembly and evidence argumentation as two separate but equally important tasks. The evidence assembly phase involves gathering qualifying exhibits for each criterion being claimed — award certificates, editorial board correspondence, expert declarations, press articles with certified translations, compensation exhibits comparing salary to BLS OEWS benchmarks for the relevant occupation and geography, and organizational charts with supporting declarations. Each exhibit should be verified as accurate and complete before inclusion in the final package. Missing pages from a publication, unsigned expert declarations, or undated letters are common reasons that otherwise solid evidence is discounted at the threshold stage before the adjudicator reaches step two.
The argumentation phase involves constructing a support brief that makes the step-one and step-two cases explicitly and separately. The brief should open with a step-one section organized by criterion, walking through each claimed criterion and citing the exhibits that satisfy it. A step-two section should then synthesize the entire record, drawing on all criteria together to argue that the holistic picture demonstrates extraordinary ability. The step-two section should contextualize evidence within the field — explaining what a particular award means among practitioners, what the selection rate for a grant review panel is, or how frequently someone at the petitioner's career stage receives invitations to keynote at major international conferences. Context is what transforms a list of credentials into a persuasive narrative.
Petitioners and attorneys preparing O-1A filings in 2026 should also prepare for RFEs challenging either the step-one finding or the step-two conclusion. An RFE arguing that threshold evidence is insufficient for a well-documented criterion is often a sign that the brief's step-one section failed to connect the exhibit to the criterion clearly enough, and the response should begin with a more explicit analytical reframing before adding supplemental evidence. An RFE that concedes threshold satisfaction but challenges the final merits conclusion typically requires either additional evidence — stronger declarations, additional press, more robust salary documentation — or a more sophisticated step-two synthesis in the response brief. Identifying which step of the Kazarian analysis the RFE is challenging is the essential starting point for crafting an effective response.
What we typically gather for this kind of case
| Document | Where to source | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Petition cover memo | Drafted by counsel | Frames every exhibit before the adjudicator opens it |
| Advisory opinion | Peer or labour organization | Required for most O-1 filings — request early |
| Itinerary or job offer | U.S. petitioner (employer or agent) | Documents the bona fide nature of the U.S. work |
| Premium Processing fee | Form I-907 + $2,805 fee | Guarantees 15-business-day adjudication |
What we see go wrong, again and again
- 01Filing close to a start date and relying on Premium Processing as a backup rather than a deliberate strategy.
- 02Treating the I-129 as the substantive filing rather than a cover sheet for the legal brief and exhibits.
- 03Underweighting the advisory opinion — a thin or hostile opinion is hard to overcome at the response stage.
See if you qualify
Lando reviews your background against the O-1 visa criteria and tells you honestly where you stand. Free, no commitment.