All EB-1A criteria
Awards - Memberships - Media - Scholarly Articles - Judging - Original Contribution - High Salary - Critical Role - Final Merits
O-1 Petitioner - EB-2 NIW Guide - Success Stories - Document Translation - Filing Fees
Final Merits Determination — Final assessment of the petition
Contents
Detailed analysis
We analyze the Final Merits Determination: what it is, how USCIS evaluates the overall picture after crediting criteria, why denials occur, and how to strengthen a petition.
What is Final Merits
What is USCIS two-step analysis?
USCIS evaluates EB-1A petitions in two steps according to the USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Part F, Ch. 2:
Step 1 (Initial Evidence): Verify whether at least 3 of the 10 criteria are satisfied.
Step 2 (Final Merits Determination): Evaluate all evidence together to determine whether the petitioner is at the top of the profession.
USCIS official wording:
“Step 2: Final merits determination: Evaluate all the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety for the final merits determination, in the context of the high level of expertise required for this immigrant classification.”
What this means: Even after 3+ criteria are credited at Step 1, the officer must proceed to Step 2 and evaluate the petition as a whole. The final decision is not made by tallying checkboxes, but by whether the entire evidence package is convincing.
Why credited criteria may not lead to approval?
The USCIS Policy Manual explicitly states that formal compliance with criteria does not equal extraordinary ability:
“Objectively meeting the regulatory criteria in the first step alone does not establish that the person in fact meets the requirements for classification as a person with extraordinary ability.”
Simply put: Formal compliance at Step 1 does not prove you are actually extraordinary.
Analogy: You apply for Senior Engineer: 5+ years of experience, knowledge of Python, database experience. On paper you meet the criteria. But at the interview it turns out your experience is junior-level tasks and your Python is basic. Formally you qualify, but in reality you are not Senior. Same with EB-1A.
What does the officer evaluate at Step 2?
At Step 2 the officer looks at the totality of evidence. All relevant evidence is considered: some pieces may be strong on their own, others persuasive only together:
“At this step, officers consider any potentially relevant evidence in the record. The officers consider all evidence in the totality. Some evidence may weigh more favorably on its own, while other evidence is more persuasive when viewed with other evidence.”
Three factors for evaluating each piece of evidence:
- Relevance: whether it pertains to extraordinary ability
- Probative value: how persuasive it is
- Credibility: whether it can be trusted
Source: USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 1, Part E, Ch. 6 and [Matter of Chawathe (2010)].
USCIS official position
USCIS requires demonstration of sustained national or international acclaim and that the individual belongs to the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. This is not a formal checklist but a qualitative assessment of the totality of evidence.
Source: USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
What does USCIS require to prove at Step 2?
The petition must show sustained recognition and membership among a narrow circle of leaders:
“To establish eligibility, the petition must demonstrate that the person has sustained national or international acclaim and that their achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the person is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.”
Key elements:
- Sustained national or international acclaim
- Recognition of achievements in the field of expertise
- Belonging to the small percentage at the top of the field of endeavor
Can an officer require a specific type of evidence?
No. The USCIS Policy Manual explicitly prohibits an officer from limiting the kinds of evidence an applicant may submit or denying a petition solely because a particular type of evidence is absent:
“An officer may not limit the kind of evidence the officer thinks the person should be able to submit and deny the petition if that particular type of evidence is absent, if the person nonetheless submitted other types of evidence that meet the regulatory requirements.”
Example: An officer believes an extraordinary person must have published articles. But they cannot deny just because articles are absent if other submitted evidence meets the regulatory requirements. Decisions are based on the type and quality of submitted evidence, not assumptions:
“Approval or denial of a petition is based on the type and quality of evidence submitted rather than assumptions about the failure to address different criteria.”
Positive evidence USCIS cites as examples
USCIS Policy Manual lists concrete examples of evidence that may help prove extraordinary ability:
1. Publications in high-ranked journals (articles in top journals of the field, supported by impact factor):
“The record demonstrates that the person has published articles in particularly highly-ranked journals relative to other journals in the field, as demonstrated by evidence regarding the journal’s impact factor.”
Especially important if the applicant is sole author, senior author, or most significant contributor.
2. High citation counts (high h-index or total citations relative to others in the field):
“The petitioner provides evidence demonstrating that the total rate of citations to the person’s body of published work is high relative to others in the field, such as the person has a high h-index for the field.”
3. Employment at leading institutions (work at top universities by Carnegie Classification or QS Rankings):
“The petitioner documents the person’s employment or research experience with leading institutions in the field (such as U.S. universities that have been recognized as having high or very high research activity by the Carnegie Classification, or a university that is highly regarded according to QS World University Rankings).”
4. Invitations to conferences (unsolicited invitations to speak at recognized national or international conferences):
“The record establishes that the person has received unsolicited invitations to speak or present research at nationally or internationally recognized conferences in the field.”
5. Grants as PI/researcher (named as investigator on competitive grants like NIH, NSF):
“The record establishes that the person is named as an investigator, scientist, or researcher on a peer-reviewed and competitively-funded U.S. government grant or stipend for STEM research.”
What must an officer do if denying?
The USCIS Policy Manual requires the officer to provide reasons for denial. They cannot simply state “insufficient”; they must articulate specific reasons:
“If the officer determines that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate eligibility, the officer should not merely make general assertions regarding this failure. Rather, the officer must articulate the specific reasons as to why the officer concluded that the petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has extraordinary ability.”
When issuing an RFE the officer must explain deficiencies and, if possible, give examples of persuasive evidence to submit:
“Provide some explanation of the deficiencies in the evidence already submitted and, if possible, examples of persuasive evidence that the petitioner might provide. Merely restating the evidentiary requirements or stating that the evidence submitted is insufficient does not clarify to the petitioner how to overcome the deficiencies.”
Standards and precedents
Two key precedents: Matter of Chawathe (quality matters more than quantity) and Kazarian (two-step analysis). Without understanding these cases, it’s impossible to build a convincing petition.
What is Matter of Chawathe and why is it important?
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010): a binding precedent for USCIS officers.
What is the AAO? (Administrative Appeals Office)
AAO - the USCIS unit that reviews appeals of denials. This is an “internal USCIS appeal”, not a federal court.
What the AAO can decide:
- Sustain - grant the appeal (overturn denial)
- Dismiss - deny the appeal (leave denial in place)
- Remand - return the case for further review
Appeals are filed via form I-290B. Appeals for I-140 (including EB-1A) go to the AAO.
AAO decisions database - you can study real cases
Key quote (truth is determined by quality, not quantity):
“Truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality.”
What this means
- NOT quantity (how many awards, publications you have) - BUT QUALITY (how significant those awards, publications are) Second principle (the officer evaluates each piece of evidence separately and within the context of all evidence):
“The officer examines each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence.”
The officer MUST evaluate each piece of evidence: 1) on its own, 2) in the context of all other evidence. This is not an abuse — it is an official requirement.
What is Kazarian and how is it applied?
[Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/04/07-56774.pdf): a court decision that established the two-step analysis.
Key quote (citations matter for Final Merits but not for counting criteria at Step 1):
“While other authors’ citations (or lack thereof) might be relevant to the final merits determination of whether a petitioner is at the very top of his or her field, they are not relevant to the antecedent procedural question of whether the petitioner has provided at least three types of evidence.”
Explanation:
Step 1: Question: “Are there published materials?” If yes, the criterion is credited. You cannot require citations or impact factor at this stage.
Step 2: Question: “Is the petitioner at the very top?” You may and should examine citations, impact, and quality.
Correct application example:
- Step 1: “There are published materials. Criterion credited.”
- Step 2: “But publications are in low-impact journals without citations. In totality this does not prove extraordinary. Denied.”
Criticism of Kazarian: Immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta calls Final Merits the “Kazarian curse”:
“Kazarian has been interpreted to also require a vague and second step analysis known as the ‘final merits determination,’ which can stump even the most extraordinary.”
What policy updates occurred in 2023-2024?
Policy Alert PA-2023-26 (September 2023) (clarifies how officers evaluate the totality of the evidence):
“Clarifies how officers evaluate the totality of the evidence and provides examples of positive factors that officers may consider.”
Key principle: Quality over Quantity. It’s not how MANY criteria but HOW STRONG the evidence is.
Policy Alert PA-2024-24 (October 2024):
- Team awards are now acceptable
- Past memberships are now acceptable
- Removed extra requirement for published material at Step 1
- Officer must compare achievements to the typical for the field
AAO practice
Which recent AAO decisions show Final Merits application?
In re 36779215 (February 25, 2025) (USCIS must consider all relevant evidence; decision depends on type and quality):
“USCIS considers ‘any potentially relevant evidence’ of record. A petition’s approval or denial rests on the evidence’s type and quality.”
AAO remanded because the Director ignored some relevant evidence. Lesson: if an officer denied, check whether they considered ALL your evidence.
In re 34029990 (October 21, 2024) (petition must show sustained recognition and place among the best in the field):
“USCIS must then make a final merits determination as to whether the record, as a whole, establishes their sustained national or international acclaim and recognized achievements placing them among the small percentage at their field’s very top.”
AAO affirmed the denial: totality showed “accomplished professional” but not “extraordinary.” Standard = not just “good”, but “among the best.”
In re 23373821 (April 13, 2023):
AAO remanded because the Director insufficiently justified the denial. The officer must explain which materials are weak and why. Cannot simply state “totality insufficient.”
What are EB-1A approval statistics?
Historical data:
Approval rates fell from 82% to 44%. USCIS yearly data.
| Year | Approval Rate | Denial Rate | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 82% | 18% | Miller Mayer |
| 2019 | 56% | 44% | Miller Mayer |
| 2022 | 75% | 25% | Arvian Immigration |
| 2023 | 70% | 30% | Arvian Immigration |
2024-2025 data (official USCIS and others):
Comparison of USCIS and law firm data. FY 2024-2025.
| Period | Approval | Denial | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY 2024 (full year) | 60.65% | 23.32% | Powell Immigration |
| FY24 Q1 | 73% | - | eb1greencard.info |
| FY24 Q2 | 71% | - | eb1greencard.info |
| FY24 Q3 | 70% | - | eb1greencard.info |
| FY24 Q4 | - | - | USCIS I-140 Data (xlsx) |
| FY25 Q1 | 74.9% | 25.1% | Shepelsky Law |
| FY25 Q2 | 72.7% | 27.3% | Boundless |
| FY25 Q3 | 66.6% | ~33% | Boundless |
Key trends 2025:
- RFE rate: 40-50% - almost half of petitions receive an RFE
- Backlog: 16,000 pending cases - an all-time high
- Petitions +50% year-over-year - sharp increase in popularity
AAO appeals: Of 30 AAO decisions (Nov 2019 - Nov 2020) only 2 were sustained (~7%). Appeal chances are low.
2025 TREND: Final Merits became the main barrier
Here is what USCIS officers write about your achievements at Step 2:
Publications
Your 7 papers? That’s normal, not extraordinary:
“Publishing scholarly articles is a routine expectation for researchers and academics in this field. The petitioner has not demonstrated that his publication record distinguishes him from the many other researchers who also publish regularly.”
Few citations? You went unnoticed:
“There are few citations of your work, suggesting that the work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater education community. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that your published research articles are not nationally or internationally acclaimed.”
Judging
“Peer review is a routine practice in academia. Many researchers are regularly asked to review manuscripts for journals in their field. The petitioner has not demonstrated that his judging experience is extraordinary or distinguishes him from other researchers.”
Salary
“The petitioner’s salary may reflect the high cost of living in the geographic area or the compensation practices of the particular employer rather than extraordinary ability.”
Awards
“A Titan Business Award was presented to [company] for its work… Being part of a team that received an award from an organization that sells awards does not indicate that one is among the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field.”
Critical Role
“While the evidence establishes the petitioner’s critical role at [Company], the record does not reflect that this employment garnered individual recognition outside the company at a level consistent with sustained national or international acclaim.”
Statistics of cases with 3+ credited criteria (2024-2025):
Even with 9 credited criteria there are denials. Denial rates by number of credited criteria.
| Credited criteria | Total cases | Denials | Approvals | Denial rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 criteria | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100% |
| 7 criteria | 3 | 1 | 0 | 100%* |
| 6 criteria | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100% |
| 5 criteria | 10 | 8 | 1 | 89% |
| 4 criteria | 12 | 8 | 0 | 100% |
| 3 criteria | 14 | 11 | 0 | 100% |
| TOTAL | 42 | 30 | 1 | 97% |
*Other cases pending (RFE/NOID)
Key findings:
- 97% denials among decided cases with 3+ criteria — these are Final Merits denials
- Only 1 approval out of 42 cases with 3+ credited criteria
- 39 of 42 cases (93%) are from 2025
“Ideal” denials — all submitted criteria credited:
According to the Talant v Kazhdom community
Real cases: 9/9 criteria credited but denial on Final Merits.
| Criteria | Profession | Date | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9/9 | Art Teacher | Apr-2025 | Deny |
| 6/6 | Software Engineer | Jun-2025 | Deny |
| 8/8 | CEO Real Estate | Feb-2025 | RFE |
| 7/7 | AI Business Analyst | May-2025 | NOID |
What this means: In 2025 passing the criteria is only the beginning. Even with 9/9 credited criteria you can be denied on Final Merits. USCIS now strictly verifies “sustained national or international acclaim.”
At which stage are denials more frequent: Step 1 or Final Merits?
Historical data (2019-2020): According to The Seltzer Firm analysis (100+ AAO decisions), less than 10% of denials were related to Final Merits.
2025 data: The situation changed. In our RFE/NOID database 97% of denials for 3+ criteria are Final Merits denials. USCIS learned to credit criteria but became stricter at the second stage.
Quality of evidence
Not all evidence is equal. Independent, objective evidence (media coverage, citations by unaffiliated researchers) weighs more than self-serving evidence (letters from colleagues, internal awards). The hierarchy of quality is critical for Final Merits.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Miller Mayer analyzed 39 AAO decisions: 24 of 39 (62%) rejected this criterion.
Typical reasons for denial:
- Patents without evidence of implementation
- Letters about "potential impact" instead of actual impact
- Citations without context (self-citations counted separately)
What works:
- Evidence of actual adoption of the work by others
- Concrete impact examples in expert letters
- Comparative citation metrics versus typical in the field
How is quality of different evidence types evaluated?
Hierarchy of sources:
Tier 1 (Strongest: independent, objective):
- Third-party media coverage
- Independent expert letters (not colleagues)
- Citations by others
- Awards judged by independent juries
- Invitations from prestigious organizations
Tier 2 (Medium: verifiable, less independent):
- Your own publications (verifiable but self-serving)
- Conference presentations
- Memberships (if selective)
Tier 3 (Weakest: self-serving):
- Letters from colleagues/employer/advisor
- Internal awards
- Self-written statements
Which criteria weigh more at Step 2?
Not all criteria carry the same weight:
An article in Nature vs 50 articles in local journals. Which carries more weight.
| Evidence | Probative Value | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Nature article with 500 citations | Very high | Top journal + major impact |
| 10 articles in local journals, 0 citations | Low | Quantity without quality |
| Membership IEEE (paid) | Very low | Not selective |
| Membership in National Academy | Very high | Highly selective |
| Award from employer | Low | Internal, not national/international |
| Award from NSF | High | National-level, prestigious |
What is Sustained Acclaim and how to prove it?
Sustained acclaim means continuous recognition over time, not one-off achievements.
A good narrative (pattern of growth):
- 2015: Regional journal
- 2017: National journal, first award
- 2019: International journal, invited speaker
- 2021: Top journal (Nature), international award
- 2023: Keynote at a major conference
A poor narrative:
- 2010: Major award + publications
- 2011-2023: nothing significant
- 2024: file EB-1A petition
- (Not sustained)
Practical tip: timeline of achievements.
Include in the petition a brief chronology of achievements (table or bulleted list) over 5–12 years of professional success. Such a timeline visually demonstrates sustained acclaim: the officer sees meaningful events occurred over a long period, not concentrated at one moment.
Example format:
Template timeline of achievements. Copy the structure for your petition.
| Year | Achievement | Criterion |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | First publication in IEEE | Scholarly Articles |
| 2017 | Invitation to review for ACM | Judging |
| 2018 | Best Paper Award at a conference | Awards |
| 2019 | Promotion to Senior Engineer | Critical Role |
| 2020 | Invited talk at an international conference | Original Contributions |
| 2021 | Article in TechCrunch about a project | Published Material |
| 2022 | H-index reached top 10% in the field | Scholarly Articles |
| 2023 | Elected to IEEE committee | Membership |
Why this helps:
- The officer immediately sees the growth trajectory
- Shows that achievements are interconnected (one led to another)
- Demonstrates sustained acclaim without searching through hundreds of pages
Frequently asked questions
How to win Final Merits in a scholarly case?
For academic cases the key Final Merits elements are:
1. Comparative metrics:
- h-index in the context of the field (compare to typical for career stage)
- Citation percentile (top 5%, top 10%)
- Impact factor of journals you publish in vs field average
2. Recognition from independent experts:
- Recommendation letters from scholars at other institutions/countries
- Invitations to review for top journals
- Invited talks at international conferences
3. Impact on the field:
- Who cites your work (prominent groups, institutes)
- How your methods/results are used by others
- Whether you changed practice in the field
4. Institutional recognition:
- Position at a Carnegie R1/R2 university
- PI on competitive grants (NIH, NSF, ERC)
- Membership in selective scholarly societies
Strengthening strategies
Four key strategies: add context to each piece of evidence, use comparative metrics, show a pattern of sustained acclaim, obtain independent letters. Each can turn the tide for an RFE or NOID.
Strategy 1: Add context to every piece of evidence
- Explain journal rankings (impact factor, percentile)
- Show the weight of awards (how many candidates, selection rate)
- Indicate audience size and the significance of organizations
Strategy 2: Use comparative metrics
- Top X% by citations in the field
- Comparison with the typical specialist (“an average PhD in the field has Y, I have Z”)
- Percentiles and rankings (h-index percentile, journal quartile)
Strategy 3: Show interconnection between achievements
- How one achievement led to another
- Pattern of recognition over time (5–10 year timeline)
- Growth of influence and recognition
Strategy 4: Obtain independent verification
- Letters from experts at other organizations/countries
- Third-party media coverage
- Citations by researchers you do not know personally
How to improve recommendation letters?
Structure of a strong letter:
- The author’s qualification (why their opinion matters)
- How the author knows the beneficiary (not through personal friendship)
- Specific examples of achievements with data
- Comparison with other specialists in the field
- Impact on the field with examples
Red flags:
- Letter from a colleague/friend without independent standing
- Generic praise (“excellent researcher”) without specifics
- No explanation why the author is qualified to assess
How to show real impact of citations?
Strategy: contact the authors who cited you.
One attorney shared a method: the client contacted 40 researchers who cited his work and asked for a short comment on how they used the results. 14 of 40 (35%) replied. These short statements (1–2 sentences about specific application) helped overcome a NOID on Final Merits.
Why this works:
- Shows quality of citations, not only quantity
- Demonstrates real influence on other work
- Independent confirmation from people you do not know personally
- Officer sees concrete examples of application
How to do it:
- Export list of citing articles from Google Scholar or Scopus
- Find authors’ emails (in articles or university pages)
- Send a short polite request to confirm how they used your work
- Even 10–15 responses notably strengthen the case
What if all strong evidence was used for the criteria?
This is a common issue: the best evidence is consumed by Step 1, leaving “nothing” for Final Merits.
Solution: the same evidence can be used twice.
At Step 1 the officer checks: “Is there evidence of this type?”
At Step 2 the officer asks: “How strong is this evidence in totality?”
How to strengthen Final Merits without new evidence:
1. Add context to existing evidence:
- Award: add statistics (out of 500 candidates, 2% selected)
- Publications: add journal ranking, citation comparison
- Judging: show prestige of organizations inviting you
2. Show interconnections:
- How the award led to invited talks
- How publications led to citations and collaborations
- How judging demonstrates recognized expertise
3. Add comparative analysis:
- “A typical PhD in my field has X, I have Y”
- “Average h-index in my field is Z, I have W”
- “Only 5% of researchers receive such invitations”
4. Obtain new independent letters:
- Letters specifically addressing Final Merits (not only criteria)
- From experts who know your work but not you personally
- Explicitly comparing you to others in the field
5. Write a strong synthesis in the cover letter:
- A separate section “Final Merits Analysis”
- Explain why the totality equals extraordinary
- Connect all criteria into a single narrative
Appeals and denials
Three options: appeal to the AAO (long, low odds), motion to reopen/reconsider (faster), or refile (often more effective). Choice depends on denial reasons and strength of new evidence.
Can you appeal a Final Merits denial?
Yes. Options:
AAO Appeal:
- Deadline: 30 days
- Fee: $675
- Time: 6–12+ months
Two types of Motion:
- Motion to Reopen - new facts unavailable earlier
- Motion to Reconsider - error in applying law/policy
More about Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider (USCIS)
Form: I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion
Motion to Reopen - ask to reopen the decision based on new facts:
- Facts not previously submitted
- Supported by affidavits or documents
- Must demonstrate eligibility at the time of original filing
- Re-submitting the same facts is not considered “new facts”
Motion to Reconsider - ask to reconsider based on legal error:
- Decision applied law or policy incorrectly
- Must be supported by references to statutes, regulations, or precedent
- New facts/evidence are not considered
Timelines and procedure:
- Filing deadline: 30 days + 3 days if decision was mailed (total 33 days)
- Fee: included in I-290B filing fee
- Processing time: ~90 days (field offices), up to 180 days (AAO)
- Brief and evidence must be submitted with the motion (not later as in an appeal)
Source: USCIS Q&A: Appeals and Motions
Arguments for appeal:
- Officer ignored part of the evidence
- Officer failed to explain which materials were weak
- Officer added requirements not present in the regulations
Refile vs Appeal: which is more effective?
Refiling is often better than appealing. A real case from Debarghya Das (founder of Glean):
After receiving a NOID the attorney recommended withdrawing and refiling:
- Reason: “officer is unlikely to budge after issuing a NOID”
- The denial stays on record and may affect future filings
What changed in the second petition:
- Minor wording adjustments in recommendation letters
- One additional recommendation letter
- Clearer contracts with clients (specific amounts)
- Clarified Published Material section
Result: Approved without an RFE in 7 days (the first petition had a NOID).
Conclusion: 99% of materials remained the same. Sometimes the problem is not the case but the officer or the wording.
Why do NOIDs come at Final Merits?
According to Invent Immigration analysis, five main reasons for NOID at the Final Merits stage:
- Unexplained achievements (achievements without context)
- Weak connections (no coherent pattern between criteria)
- Questionable media coverage (coverage looks promotional or artificial)
- Inconsistencies (contradictions in documentation)
- Misalignment (evidence does not align with chosen criteria)
Key takeaway: Meeting three criteria alone does not guarantee approval. Final Merits is often where USCIS finds a petition lacking.
What to do if you receive an RFE on Final Merits?
RFE on Final Merits: the officer doubts that the totality proves extraordinary. This is a chance to strengthen the case.
What to do
- Analyze which arguments failed - Add comparative metrics - Obtain additional independent letters - Explicitly explain why the totality of achievements = extraordinary What to avoid: - Repeating the same evidence in different words - Ignoring the officer's specific questions - Adding weak criteria just for quantity
How officers devalue credited criteria
The main EB-1A trap: a criterion is credited at Step 1, but at Step 2 the officer writes it “carries no weight.” Below is an analysis by criterion with real quotes from RFEs and denials.
Scholarly Articles: why 5–10 publications don’t save you
Typical officer complaints:
Too few publications for a field where many publish:
“The petitioner has authored only 5 scholarly articles. While this meets the regulatory criterion, it does not demonstrate that the petitioner has risen to the very top of the field where researchers typically publish dozens of articles over their careers.”
Mid-tier journals, not top-tier:
“The petitioner’s articles appear in mid-tier journals. The record does not establish that these journals are among the most prestigious or highly-ranked in the field, nor that publication in them is indicative of extraordinary ability.”
Few or no citations:
“The petitioner’s published work has received minimal citations. The lack of citations suggests the work has not significantly influenced or been recognized by others in the field.”
All publications recent (2–3 years):
“The petitioner’s scholarly articles were all published within the two years preceding the petition. This recent burst of publications does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or a career of recognized work in the field.”
Publishing is routine, not proof of extraordinary:
“Publishing scholarly articles is a routine expectation for researchers and academics in this field. The petitioner has not demonstrated that his publication record distinguishes him from the many other researchers who also publish regularly.”
Combined critique:
“While the petitioner has authored 7 scholarly articles meeting the initial criterion, these articles were published in journals of moderate impact, have received few citations from other researchers, and were all published within the past 3 years. This publication record does not distinguish the petitioner from other competent researchers in the field or establish that she is among that small percentage at the very top.”
Published Material: why 6 media articles may not work
Typical officer complaints:
Articles describe the work but don’t show top status:
“While the submitted articles mention the petitioner’s work, they do not discuss his achievements in a manner that would indicate he has risen to the very top of his field. The articles provide general information about his projects but do not compare him to other leaders in the field or suggest he has achieved extraordinary recognition.”
Local or niche outlets:
“The media coverage appears primarily in local publications or niche industry outlets. The petitioner has not established that these publications constitute ‘major media’ or that such coverage demonstrates national or international acclaim.”
Press releases or sponsored content:
“Several of the submitted articles appear to be press releases or sponsored content rather than independent journalism. Such promotional materials do not demonstrate that the petitioner has attracted significant attention from the media due to extraordinary achievements.”
Limited coverage for the claimed level of recognition:
“The petitioner submitted 6 articles about his work. However, for someone claiming to be at the very top of the field, this limited media coverage does not demonstrate the level of sustained national or international acclaim expected of individuals with extraordinary ability.”
Doesn’t show distinction from peers:
“While these articles discuss the petitioner’s career and accomplishments, they do not establish how the petitioner’s work or recognition differs from that of other successful professionals in the same field. The coverage does not indicate that the petitioner is viewed as being among the small percentage at the very top.”
Combined critique:
“The 8 articles submitted provide an overview of the petitioner’s career in the field. However, this media recognition, while meeting the initial evidentiary criterion, does not demonstrate that the petitioner has achieved the level of sustained acclaim required. The articles appear in regional publications, do not compare the petitioner to other leaders in the field, and do not suggest she has risen to the very top of her field of endeavor.”
Judging: why 20 peer reviews don’t convince
Typical officer complaints:
Peer review is routine in academia:
“Peer review is a routine practice in academia. Many researchers are regularly asked to review manuscripts for journals in their field. The petitioner has not demonstrated that his judging experience is extraordinary or distinguishes him from other researchers who also participate in peer review.”
Too few reviews or mid-tier journals:
“The petitioner has reviewed approximately 15 manuscripts for various journals. However, this limited record of peer review, for journals that are not shown to be among the most prestigious in the field, does not establish that the petitioner has achieved a level of recognition placing her among the small percentage at the very top.”
Invitations do not prove expert status:
“While the petitioner has been invited to review manuscripts, the record does not establish that such invitations are limited to those with extraordinary ability. Journal editors commonly invite researchers to review papers based on their familiarity with the subject matter, not necessarily because they are considered to be at the top of their field.”
No proof of selectivity or prestige:
“The petitioner did not provide evidence regarding the selectivity of the judging opportunities or explain how being selected to judge demonstrates extraordinary ability rather than simply competence in the field.”
Sporadic participation, not systematic:
“The petitioner’s judging experience consists of sporadic manuscript reviews over several years. This limited and irregular participation does not demonstrate the sustained recognition expected of someone at the very top of the field.”
Combined critique:
“The petitioner has served as a peer reviewer for 12 journals, reviewing approximately 25 manuscripts total. While this satisfies the initial criterion for judging, the record does not establish that this level of participation distinguishes the petitioner from the many other researchers who routinely participate in peer review. The petitioner has not shown that the journals are particularly prestigious or that the invitation to review reflects recognition of extraordinary expertise rather than standard academic practice.”
Awards: why 3 awards are devalued
Typical officer complaints:
Internal awards or employer awards:
“The petitioner’s awards appear to be internal recognitions from his employer or industry associations rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence. Such internal awards do not demonstrate that the petitioner has achieved acclaim beyond his immediate professional circle.”
Low selectivity or pay-to-play:
“The record indicates that these awards are given in numerous categories, allow self-nomination, and require payment of fees. Such awards are not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as being among the very top of the field.”
Awards are recent, not sustained:
“All of the petitioner’s awards were received within the 18 months prior to filing. This recent recognition does not demonstrate a career of sustained acclaim in the field.”
Regional or local awards:
“While the petitioner received several awards, these appear to be regional or local in scope. The petitioner has not established that these awards carry national or international recognition or that receiving them places one among the small percentage at the very top of the field.”
No context on award prestige:
“The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the criteria for these awards, the number of recipients, or their standing in the field. Without such context, the awards do not demonstrate that the petitioner has risen to the very top of her field.”
Combined critique:
“The petitioner submitted evidence of 4 awards received between 2022 and 2024. However, these awards include industry awards that allow self-nomination and payment, recognitions from the petitioner’s employer, and a regional competition award. While meeting the initial criterion, these awards do not demonstrate that the petitioner has achieved the level of sustained national or international acclaim expected of those at the very top of the field.”
Membership: why IEEE/ACM membership may not work
Typical officer complaints:
Membership is open to anyone who pays:
“The petitioner’s membership in [Association] appears to be available to anyone who pays the membership fee and meets basic professional qualifications. This type of membership does not demonstrate outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.”
Membership not selective:
“While the petitioner is a member of several professional associations, the record does not establish that membership in these organizations requires outstanding achievements. Many professionals in the field hold similar memberships based on educational credentials or professional experience rather than exceptional accomplishment.”
Senior Member != Fellow:
“The petitioner’s Senior Member status in IEEE, while requiring some professional experience, is not equivalent to the highly selective Fellow status which is limited to a small percentage of members. Senior membership does not demonstrate that the petitioner has achieved extraordinary ability.”
Membership does not show top status:
“Merely attaining membership in professional organizations is not in keeping with achieving sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner has not demonstrated how his memberships distinguish him from the many other members of these organizations. Thousands of professionals hold similar memberships.”
Combined critique:
“The petitioner holds memberships in IEEE and ACM, including Senior Member status in IEEE. However, these memberships are available to professionals who meet experience and education requirements and pay dues. The petitioner has not established that these memberships require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts or that holding them places one among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Thousands of professionals hold similar memberships.”
High Salary: why $200K doesn’t convince
Typical officer complaints:
No comparison with top of the field:
“While the petitioner’s salary exceeds the average for the occupation, the petitioner has not demonstrated how this salary compares to those at the very top of the field. A salary that is above average does not establish that the petitioner is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top.”
Salary reflects location, not ability:
“The petitioner’s salary may reflect the high cost of living in the geographic area or the compensation practices of the particular employer rather than extraordinary ability. The petitioner has not established that the salary reflects recognition of extraordinary expertise in the field.”
Typical for senior roles:
“The submitted salary appears consistent with compensation for senior professionals in this field with similar experience. The petitioner has not demonstrated that this salary level distinguishes him from other experienced professionals or reflects recognition of extraordinary ability.”
Combined critique:
“The petitioner earns $185,000 annually. While this meets the high salary criterion when compared to average wages for the occupation, the petitioner has not demonstrated how this salary compares to those earned by individuals at the very top of the field. The salary appears consistent with senior-level positions in the technology industry in the San Francisco Bay Area. The petitioner has not established that this remuneration is indicative of or consistent with extraordinary ability.”
Critical Role: why VP/Director title is not enough
Typical officer complaints:
No recognition outside the company:
“While the evidence establishes the petitioner’s critical role at [Company], the record does not reflect that this employment garnered individual recognition outside the company at a level consistent with sustained national or international acclaim.”
Many people hold similar positions:
“The petitioner’s role as Director of Engineering, while important to the organization, is a position held by many professionals across the industry. The petitioner has not demonstrated how this role distinguishes him from other directors or establishes that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.”
Organization not distinguished:
“The petitioner has not established that [Company] is a distinguished organization in the field. Without evidence of the organization’s prominence, the petitioner’s role there does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.”
Company success != individual ability:
“While the petitioner contributed to projects at [Company], the record does not establish that the petitioner’s individual contributions, as opposed to the collective efforts of the organization, demonstrate that the petitioner has risen to the very top of the field.”
Combined critique:
“The petitioner has held the position of Senior Director at [Startup] for the past 3 years. While this position may be critical to the organization, the petitioner has not established that [Startup] is a distinguished organization in the field or that this role has resulted in recognition outside the company. Many professionals hold senior director positions at technology companies. The petitioner has not demonstrated how this role establishes that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.”
Officers use the same logic:
"Meets criterion but..."- criterion credited, BUT..."Does not distinguish from others"- does not set you apart from other professionals"Does not demonstrate small percentage at the very top"- does not show position among the best"Routine/common/typical"- ordinary practice in the field"No evidence of recognition/acclaim"- no proof of recognition
Conclusion: It is not enough to formally meet the criteria. Each criterion must be supported with context showing why your achievements put you above a typical specialist.
Real NOID: 4 criteria credited but Final Merits failed
Example from a real NOID (Sep-2025). The officer credited 4 criteria: Awards, Judging, Scholarly Articles, Critical Role. But at Final Merits wrote:
“Upon review, USCIS finds that the beneficiary has met four of the ten criteria: Awards, Judging, Scholarly Articles, and Critical Role. However, meeting the minimum regulatory criteria alone does not establish eligibility for the extraordinary ability classification.”
“The totality of the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary has achieved the level of acclaim and recognition consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of her field.”
“The beneficiary’s achievements, while notable within her immediate professional circle, do not demonstrate the breadth and depth of recognition that would place her among the small percentage at the very top of the field of business analysis. The evidence shows primarily regional or organizational recognition rather than the national or international acclaim contemplated by the extraordinary ability classification.”
“Therefore, despite meeting four of the ten criteria, the final merits determination finds that the beneficiary has not established eligibility for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.”
"notable within her immediate professional circle"- good within the circle but not extraordinary"primarily regional or organizational recognition"- regional, not national/international"breadth and depth of recognition"- breadth and depth of recognition
Insights from real RFEs: additional patterns
Three main patterns: officers require sustained acclaim (not one-offs), criticize letters from colleagues, and apply the Matter of Price standard (even top professionals are not automatically extraordinary).
What officers say about “sustained acclaim”?
Officers check whether recognition is maintained over time. Recognition must be sustained. One may have been extraordinary in the past but failed to maintain comparable acclaim thereafter:
“In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed ‘sustained’ national or international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary may have achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain a comparable level of acclaim thereafter.”
Typical complaint: Awards or memberships only in the last 1–2 years do not prove sustained acclaim:
“Evidence of the beneficiary’s awards, granted in 2022 and 2023, was submitted. However, for the analysis in part two… as the awards were granted in 2022 and 2023, the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim.”
How to avoid: Show a pattern of recognition over multiple years, not only recent achievements.
How does the officer analyze each criterion at Step 2?
Example from a real NOID (Aug-2025). The officer credited criteria at Step 1, but at Step 2 analyzed each:
Awards (credited at Step 1, but…):
“Evidence of the beneficiary’s awards, granted in 2022 and 2023, was submitted. The awards meets the requisite standard of national or international recognition for excellence and the regulatory criteria in part one is satisfied. However, for the analysis in part two, the beneficiary’s record is evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of him being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim. As the awards were granted in 2022 and 2023, the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim.”
Published Material (credited, but…):
“The petitioner has provided evidence of published material about the beneficiary in [publications] in 2025. The evidence includes circulation data and the plain language criteria is met. The evidence should establish the significance of the published material submitted as it relates to the alien’s contributions and how the alien is one of that small percent who have risen to the very top of his or her field. As the evidence that meets the criteria is dated 2025, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim.”
Judging (credited, but…):
“The beneficiary served as a judge in 2024 and 2025. Participating in the judging of the work of others… should satisfy the regulatory criteria in part one. However, for the analysis in part two, the beneficiary’s participation is evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The evidence does not show that the beneficiary served as an expert judge, panelist, or reviewer, for the selection of recognized memberships in the beneficiary’s same or allied field. The evidence does not show that the beneficiary has reviewed a large number of articles for distinguished journals.”
Scholarly Articles (credited, but…):
“The beneficiary’s articles were published in 2025. Publishing scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media alone, regardless of the caliber, should satisfy the regulatory criteria in part one. However, for the analysis in part two… The evidence does not show that the beneficiary consistently published scholarly articles in journals with the highest impact factors within the field. The evidence does not show that the beneficiary’s articles are widely cited by other experts in the field.”
Critical Role (credited, but…):
“The beneficiary served as a Programmer with [Company] from April 3, 2023 through April 4, 2024… The regulatory criteria in part one is met. However, for the analysis in part two, the beneficiary’s role is evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. As the beneficiary’s record of service started April 2023, it does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.”
Key pattern: At Step 2 the officer looks at dates of achievements. If everything is in 2024–2025, it’s not “sustained.” Achievements over multiple years are needed.
Why deny with good criteria?
Officers often credit criteria but deny at Final Merits. Typical wording: “a talented professional” but not extraordinary:
“It appears from the record that the beneficiary is a talented and accomplished professional in the field. However, Congress intended the classification of extraordinary ability to be given to those very few at the top of the field of endeavor. The evidence of record, in totality, does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has enjoyed a career of sustained acclaim as one of the very top of the field.”
Key phrase: “talented and accomplished” is insufficient for “extraordinary.” Even media coverage of a career does not prove being among the best:
“While the articles provide an overview of the petitioner’s career… the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how this media recognition demonstrates she is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field.”
What do officers say about recommendation letters?
Typical criticism: praise from employers and colleagues does not show that the person is seen by the overall field as among the very top:
“While the beneficiary has earned the praise of his employers and peers, the letters do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that the beneficiary is viewed by the overall field as being among that small percentage at the very top.”
Problem: Letters describe work but not why it places the person at the top of the field.
What do officers say about citations and publications?
Few citations mean the work went largely unnoticed and does not place you at the top:
“There are few citations of your work, suggesting that the work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater education community. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that your published research articles are not nationally or internationally acclaimed nor place you at the very top of the field.”
Publications without citations do not generate the level of interest associated with sustained acclaim:
“The record lacks evidence that the beneficiary’s publications have been cited by other researchers or experts in the field, or that they have generated a level of interest in the beneficiary and his work commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim.”
Conclusion: Publications without citations and impact do not prove extraordinary ability.
What do officers say about judging?
Limited and sporadic peer-review experience does not demonstrate recognition at the top of the field:
“The petitioner provided evidence that she has peer-reviewed manuscripts for the journal… However, this limited and sporadic record of manuscript reviews is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner has achieved the level of recognition and prominence required to establish that she is at the top of her field.”
No explanation of how judging places the person at the top of the field:
“The petitioner did not establish how her judging experience places her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.”
Problem: Judging is credited at Step 1 but at Step 2 the officer assesses scale and prestige.
What do officers say about high salary?
Not shown how salary compares to those at the top of the field:
“The petitioner did not show that her salary or remuneration is tantamount to an individual who is among that small percentage at the very top of the field. The petitioner did not demonstrate how her salary or remuneration compared to others at the very top of her field.”
Conclusion: High salary must be contextualized relative to top specialists.
What do officers say about leading/critical role?
A critical role in a company is credited, but does not show individual recognition beyond the company:
“While the evidence is sufficient to establish the self-petitioner’s critical role with [companies], the record does not reflect that his employment at these organizations garnered him individual recognition outside of the company at a level consistent with sustained national or international acclaim.”
Problem: Company role ≠ field-wide recognition. You must show influence beyond the organization.
What do officers say about “career of acclaimed work”?
Officers cite this phrase from Congressional Report. A few articles months before filing do not show a career of acclaimed work:
“These few articles published in the few months prior to the filing of the instant petition are not indicative of a ‘career of acclaimed work in the field’ as contemplated by Congress.”
An overall record not matching leading figures in the field:
“The petitioner’s overall track record does not measure up to those of leading figures in the field.”
Conclusion: Achievements months before filing look like petition preparation, not a sustained career.
What do officers say about awards (Titan, Globee, etc.)?
Officers check award reputation. Awards that allow self-nomination, require fees, or upsell services do not indicate top-level recognition:
“Such awards are not indicative of having achieved sustained acclaim as one of the very top of the field of endeavor. [These awards] include numerous awards and levels in various categories, individuals can nominate themselves and pay a fee, recipients are offered ‘upselling’ of services, awards can be granted ‘all year long’.”
- Self-nomination
- Pay-to-play awards
- Many categories and levels
- "Upselling" additional services
What do officers say about memberships?
Merely attaining membership in professional organizations is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim:
“Merely attaining ‘membership’ in professional organizations in the field is also not in keeping with achieving sustained national or international acclaim or being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor.”
Conclusion: Membership alone does not prove extraordinary ability. Show selectivity and importance.
Key quote about the standard (Matter of Price)
Even top-level athletes are not automatically considered extraordinary ability:
“USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the ‘extraordinary ability’ standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm’r 1994).”
What this means: Even major-league professionals are not automatically extraordinary. The standard is very high.
Additional requirements: Continue Work and Substantial Benefit
Sometimes officers request additional proof:
Continue Work in the U.S. (must show how the person will continue working in the claimed field in the U.S.):
“It must be shown how the beneficiary will continue working in the United States in the claimed area of expertise. The petition does not indicate that the beneficiary has prearranged commitments for working in this field.”
Officers criticize vague plans. Example from an RFE (Jul-2025):
“Your cover letter suggests collaborating with various organizations (i.e. Livestock Conservancy and the American Cream Draft Horse Association) as well as starting an ‘eco-farming enterprise’ or a ‘non-profit organization’. These activities fail to sufficiently outline how you will continue work in the United States given their vague nature. USCIS does not consider a vague cover letter with little to no probative details to be clear evidence under 8 C.F.R. Section 204.5(h)(5).”
Substantial Benefit to the U.S. (rare request, must show how the arrival will substantially benefit the U.S.):
“It must be shown how the beneficiary’s entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. The petition does not indicate that the beneficiary’s entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. The statement from the petitioner does not include detailed plans on how his work will substantially benefit prospectively the United States.”
- Letters from current or prospective employers
- Employment contracts
- Statement detailing plans on how to continue work
- Evidence explaining how work will benefit the U.S.
- Other evidence explaining how the beneficiary's work will be advantageous and of use to the interests of the United States on a national level
USCIS template phrases
Officers use standard phrasing in RFEs and denials. Knowing these templates helps understand what is actually required.
Template: when fewer than 3 criteria are met
Standard phrasing when the officer did not credit at least 3 criteria:
“Upon review, USCIS finds that the beneficiary has not received a one-time achievement (a major internationally recognized award) or does not meet at least three of the ten criteria. Since the petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary meets at least three of the antecedent evidentiary prongs, USCIS will not conduct a final merits determination…”
What this means: They will not reach Final Merits. Strengthen evidence for the criteria.
Template: transition to Final Merits
When the officer credited 3+ criteria and proceeds to Step 2:
“As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary has met at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the evidence presented in its entirety to make a final merits determination, of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise required for the E11 immigrant classification.”
What this means: Criteria were credited; now the totality is evaluated.
Template: what is required at Final Merits
Standard explanation of Step 2 requirements:
“Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the E11 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing: (1) Sustained national or international acclaim. In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed ‘sustained’ national or international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained; and, (2) Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the beneficiary is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.”
Template: denial at Final Merits
Standard denial wording after criteria were credited:
“Therefore, USCIS does not find the beneficiary to be an individual of extraordinary ability. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden.”
Template: Congress intended a high standard
Officers often cite Congressional intent:
“Congress intended the classification of extraordinary ability to be given to those very few at the top of their field of endeavor. USCIS and legacy INS have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability.”
Why know templates: When you see template language, focus on the officer’s specific critiques. Templates are boilerplate; the substance is in the details.
Practical conclusions
Five main rules: submit documents with context, offset weaknesses with strengths, don’t rely only on criteria, use failure to consider evidence as an argument for appeal, and remind USCIS of its duty to evaluate the entire case.
Submit documents with context.
USCIS evaluates the totality.
The final decision depends on the persuasiveness of the narrative.
and of the prohibition on requiring a narrow type of evidence.
Checklist: how to prove Final Merits?
Before filing check:
- There is comparison with a typical specialist in the field (metrics, achievements)
- Context is provided for each achievement (why it matters)
- There are independent letters from experts not connected to you
- A pattern of sustained acclaim is shown (not one-off achievements)
- Evidence of impact on the field (citations, adoption, recognition)
- Evidence is connected in a narrative (career story, growth)
- Cover letter explicitly explains why totality = extraordinary
For each criterion add:
- Context (how many candidates, selection rate, prestige)
- Comparison (how this relates to the typical in the field)
- Significance (why this demonstrates extraordinary ability)
Service center specifics
Different service centers may have their own “preferred” questions and requirements. 2025 practice shows regional nuances:
Texas Service Center (TSC):
- Stricter about consistency of the field of endeavor: clearly define the field and stick to it in all statements
- Require recommendation letters for “leading/critical role” on official letterhead from organizations
- Do not credit articles in Forbes and similar popular outlets as “published material about the alien” (view them as popular, not professional)
Practical takeaways:
- When filing at TSC emphasize field-specific publications for Published Material
- Obtain all critical role letters on official company letterhead
- If you switched fields (e.g., engineer to product manager), explain common denominators and show connections between fields
What quotes to use in the petition?
When preparing a petition or RFE response you can cite:
- USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Part F, Ch. 2 (two-step analysis)
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (quality over quantity)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (two-step separation)
- Policy Alert PA-2023-26 (quality over quantity)
- Policy Alert PA-2024-24 (comprehensive evaluation)
This shows the officer that you understand the Final Merits standard and frame the weight of each piece of evidence as USCIS requires.
Read also