EB-1A Criteria: Why Meeting 3 Still Gets You Denied (Kazarian Explained)

Poghos Kazarian lost his case.

The Armenian physicist whose name sits on the test that governs every EB-1A petition filed since 2010 had his own petition denied. The Ninth Circuit ruled against him at the first stage, and in one passing sentence mentioned that certain evidence might be relevant to a final merits determination. The court never defined that step, never applied it, and never reached it.

USCIS built its entire second-stage review on that sentence.

Which is why you can satisfy the EB-1A criteria on paper and still get a denial letter.

What is the Kazarian Two-Step Test?

USCIS reviews extraordinary ability petitions in two stages.

Step one. An officer counts whether your evidence satisfies at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3), or whether you hold a one-time major internationally recognized award. This part is mechanical.

Step two, the final merits determination. The officer steps back and assesses whether the record taken as a whole shows sustained national or international acclaim and places you among the small percentage at the very top of your field.

Step one is countable. Step two is judgment.

Where the Second Step came From

The history matters, because it explains why the standard feels arbitrary.

No notice-and-comment rulemaking happened at any point. The step that decides most EB-1A denials was created by internal memo.

Why can EB-1A be Denied when You meet Three Criteria?

Because step two asks a different question than step one.

Step one asks whether a piece of evidence fits a category. Step two asks whether the whole picture describes someone at the top of their field.

A petition can clear the first and fail the second when the criteria sit in isolation from each other. One conference review, one paper nobody cited, one internal award. Each technically counts. Together they describe a competent professional, and competent is a long way below the standard.

The uscis eb1a criteria were never designed as a checklist. Officers read them as a portrait.

What is the EB-1A Final Merits Review Looking For?

Three things, in practice.

Coherence. Strong records explain themselves. The judging invitations arrived because publications built a reputation. The press coverage exists because a contribution mattered outside your own company. When each piece has an obvious cause, an officer reads a career rather than a file.

Recency. Sustained means your evidence can't stop in 2019. A record that peaks and goes quiet reads as someone who was once notable.

External validation. Everything internal to your employer carries less weight. Adoption of your work by other organizations is what separates achievement from job performance.

What Happened in Mukherji v. Miller

On January 28, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Nebraska vacated a denial and ordered USCIS to approve the petition.

The petitioner had met five of the ten criteria, well above the required three, and was denied anyway at the final merits stage for lacking sustained acclaim.

The court held that USCIS adopted the two-step framework as a binding adjudication standard without the notice-and-comment rulemaking the Administrative Procedure Act requires, and that applying it was arbitrary and capricious because the agency never explained the policy change.

What this means for your eb1a application right now:

• The ruling is not binding nationwide. It applies in that district
• USCIS continues applying the two-step framework to new filings
• The government may appeal
• For denials issued between 2010 and 2026, it creates potential grounds for federal court challenge
• It's worth citing in RFE and NOID responses where final merits reasoning is vague

So build for both steps. The framework is legally shaky and it's still the one deciding your case.

Am I Eligible for an EB1A Green Card Under this Standard?

Nobody can answer that from a blog post. What you can do is test your own record against both stages.

For step one, list every documented item and map it to a specific criterion. If you need to stretch to reach three, you have a step-one problem before you get anywhere near step two.

For step two, ask three questions about the same list:

• Does anything here connect to anything else here?
• Has something happened in the last eighteen months?
• Would somebody outside my company recognize any of this?

Three no answers means the record needs building rather than filing.

The Most Common Reasons for Denial after Meeting Three Criteria

• Publications with no citations. A paper proves work happened. Citation and adoption prove it mattered
• Judging that's internal. Promotion committees and design reviews read as job duties. External peer review is the real thing
• Letters that praise rather than describe. Six letters saying you're excellent, all in the same voice, because the same person drafted them
• Evidence with no explanation. Exhibits dropped in without a line saying what they prove and which criterion they serve
• A record that stopped years ago. Strong evidence from 2018 and silence since

How to Strengthen a Petition Against Step Two

The eb1a eligibility criteria give you the structure. The argument is what survives the second stage.

Three strong criteria beat five thin ones. Every time. A petition claiming five weak criteria invites the officer to notice how thin each one is, while three well-documented ones with real depth build a picture.

Write the brief for a generalist. The officer has minutes and no background in your field. If understanding your contribution requires domain expertise you never explained, you wrote it for the wrong reader.

And connect the dots explicitly. Say why the judging invitations came, what the citations mean in your specific field, who outside your company uses your work. Leaving an officer to infer significance is how strong records get denied.

One Thing that Changed in August 2026

USCIS updated its Policy Manual so officers can deny a petition outright where the record fails to establish eligibility, without issuing a Request for Evidence first.

The second chance that softened weak EB1A visa requirements filings is no longer the default. A petition built to clear step one and hope for a question can now simply end.

FAQ

What is the Kazarian two-step test for EB-1A, and how does it work?

Step one counts whether you meet three of ten regulatory criteria. Step two assesses whether the whole record shows you are among the small percentage at the top of your field.

Can USCIS deny an EB-1A petition even if I meet 3 out of 10 criteria?

Yes. Meeting three criteria satisfies step one only. Most denials of otherwise qualified petitions happen at the final merits stage.

What is the EB-1A final merits determination, and why does it matter?

It's the discretionary second review of your entire record. It matters because it is where strong-looking petitions most often fail.

How can I prove I have extraordinary ability under the Kazarian test?

Show evidence that connects. Judging that follows from reputation, contributions adopted outside your organization, and recognition that continued into the last two years.

What evidence does USCIS look for during the EB-1A final merits review?

Citation and adoption data, external peer review, press coverage, salary comparisons against your specific field and geography, and letters describing your work in detail.

What are the most common reasons for EB-1A denial after meeting three criteria?

Uncited publications, internal judging, generic letters, evidence submitted without explanation, and records that stop several years back.

How can I strengthen my EB-1A petition to pass the final merits determination?

Build three criteria with genuine depth rather than five thin ones, and explain in the brief why each piece of evidence connects to the others.

Can I appeal an EB-1A denial based on the Kazarian final merits determination?

The Mukherji ruling gives some denied petitioners grounds to challenge in federal court. It isn't binding nationwide, so speak to an immigration attorney about your specific case.