Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding Researchers, and the Kazarian Reality
Basic 101: Advanced EB-1 Issues Explained and our platform helps to overcome that issues.
The EB-1 immigrant visa category is often described as the fastest and most prestigious employment-based path to permanent residence. In practice, it is also one of the most misunderstood and aggressively scrutinized categories. Drawing from Advanced EB-1 Issues (Extraordinary and Outstanding) by David A.M. Ware and Angelica Grado-Wright, this article breaks down how EB-1 cases are actually evaluated today and what applicants and practitioners must do to succeed in a post-Kazarian adjudication environment.
Understanding the Legal Foundation of EB-1
EB-1 encompasses two closely related but distinct classifications.
EB-1A Extraordinary Ability applies to individuals in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics who have reached the very top of their field. No job offer or labor certification is required, but the evidentiary bar is extremely high.
EB-1B Outstanding Professor or Researcher is limited to academic fields and requires employer sponsorship and a permanent job offer. The standard is slightly lower, but the documentation must still demonstrate international recognition.
Both categories are governed by statute and regulation, but how those regulations are applied changed fundamentally after one court decision.
The Kazarian Turning Point
Before 2010, many practitioners relied on a straightforward approach. If an applicant met the required number of evidentiary criteria, approval was expected. This approach was reinforced by earlier case law such as Buletini v. INS, which treated meeting the criteria as sufficient unless USCIS could articulate specific reasons for denial.
That changed with Kazarian v. USCIS.
Under Kazarian, USCIS now applies a two-step analysis:
Initial evidentiary review
Officers determine whether the submitted evidence fits within the regulatory categories.
Final merits determination
Officers then evaluate the evidence as a whole to decide whether it actually proves sustained national or international acclaim and placement at the very top of the field.
This second step introduced a highly subjective element. Even if an applicant satisfies multiple criteria, USCIS may still deny the case if the officer concludes that the overall record does not demonstrate extraordinary or outstanding stature.
Why RFEs Increased After Kazarian
The Kazarian framework has led to a noticeable rise in Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny. The final merits determination gives adjudicators wide discretion, often without clear guidance on how to weigh evidence.
Although the legal standard remains preponderance of the evidence, RFEs frequently suggest a much higher, unstated standard. This makes front-loaded case strategy more important than ever.
Developing a Coherent Theory of the Case
One of the strongest themes in the presentation is the importance of developing and sticking to a clear theory of the case from the start.
This includes:
Defining the field carefully.
Deciding whether to narrow or broaden the field strategically
Choosing the EB-1 category that best aligns with the applicant’s profile
Ensuring every piece of evidence supports the same narrative
Switching theories after an RFE is risky and often signals that the case was not properly framed at the outset.
How Meritocrat Reorders EB-1 Strategy Without Changing the Law
Most EB-1 strategies begin at the same place. Count the criteria. Aim for three. Then attempt to make everything else fit. This approach technically follows the regulation, but it often fails at the final merits stage.
Meritocrat uses the same legal theory that governs EB-1 adjudication today, but it deliberately reorders the steps to match how cases are actually evaluated.
Step One: Understand the Profile Before Defining the Field
Before discussing EB-1 criteria, Meritocrat starts with the individual profile.
This includes the beneficiary’s field of work, scope of influence, role type, and professional trajectory. In many cases, the field is already clearly definable once the basic profile is mapped correctly. When it is not, this step surfaces the ambiguity early, before evidence is collected.
Defining the field correctly is not a formality. It determines whether someone can plausibly be evaluated as being at the very top of that field.
Step Two: Align the Profile to EB-1 Criteria, Not the Other Way Around
Instead of forcing evidence into predefined buckets, Meritocrat introduces an alignment layer.
This layer maps the individual’s actual work to the EB-1 criteria that naturally fit the profile. Some criteria are structurally stronger for certain roles. Others are inherently weaker and should never be primary anchors.
Attorneys intuitively do this categorization. Meritocrat formalizes it.
Step Three: Identify the Three Core Criteria That Carry the Case
Every EB-1A case must satisfy at least three criteria at the regulatory stage. But experienced attorneys do not treat all criteria equally.
Meritocrat reflects this reality by helping identify:
Three criteria that are strong enough to carry the case
One or two additional criteria that reinforce the final merits determination
Remaining criteria that function only as supporting context
The objective is not to satisfy as many criteria as possible. The objective is to make three criteria unmistakably strong, credible, and defensible.
Step Four: Strengthen the Same Three for Final Merits
Passing the regulatory threshold is not the finish line.
Meritocrat emphasizes that final merits are not about adding new categories. They are about deepening the same three criteria that already passed step one.
For example:
Awards are not just listed but contextualized by selectivity and impact
Judging is connected to influence and trust in the field
Original contributions are tied to downstream adoption, usage, or reliance
Two of the three core criteria often do most of the work at the final merits stage. The third stabilizes the narrative.
Step Five: Use the Remaining Evidence to Support, Not Compete
Supporting evidence should never compete with the core narrative.
Meritocrat ensures that secondary criteria:
Reinforce the same story
Do not introduce contradictions
Do not dilute the strength of the primary three
This reduces inconsistency, which is one of the most common reasons cases are flagged.
Why This Reordering Works
The law has not changed. The Kazarian framework still applies. What has changed is how successful cases are structured.
Meritocrat mirrors how experienced EB-1 attorneys think but translates that thinking into a structured, repeatable process:
Profile first
Field clarity next
Criteria alignment after
Strength before quantity
Final merits planned from the beginning
This approach does not chase approval. It builds a case that makes approval the logical outcome.
Evidence That Actually Matters
Meeting the minimum number of criteria is necessary but never sufficient. Weak or poorly explained evidence can damage the overall picture, even if it technically fits a category.
Key lessons include:
Do not overreach by submitting marginal evidence simply to increase the count
Use expert letters to explain impact, not to repeat praise
Show why awards are prestigious, not just that they exist
Demonstrate how original contributions changed practice, research, or outcomes in the field
Clearly establish both the applicant’s role and the distinction of the organization when claiming a leading or critical role
USCIS officers are not subject-matter experts. Evidence must be explained in clear, concrete terms that a non-specialist can understand.
The Role of Expert Letters
Start Your Profile Building from this point if you don’t know where to start.
Look back at all of your past work and clearly write down what you contributed. Then ask yourself whether the story can be told with you as the central figure. If it cannot, reframe the narrative so that your role and impact place you at the center of the story.
Expert opinion letters remain critical, especially for original contributions and leading roles. However, their value depends entirely on substance.
Effective letters:
Come from recognized leaders in the field
Focus on specific contributions and their downstream impact
Explain how the applicant’s work influenced others
Avoid generic or forward-looking language about potential
Letters that rely on adjectives without analysis add little weight and are often discounted.
RFEs, NOIDs, and Strategic Decisions
Even strong cases may receive RFEs. When they do:
Act immediately and plan for the full response timeline
Address the correct legal standard explicitly and politely
Avoid emotional or confrontational language
Decide strategically whether responding, refiling, or appealing makes the most sense
In some situations, withdrawing and refiling with a stronger initial submission may be more effective than responding to a deeply flawed RFE.
Managing Expectations in Marginal Cases
That is why Legal Merit Evaluation is built into the Meritocrat platform. You can work directly with a well-known attorney or begin with self analysis until you reach a position of clarity and strength before approaching an attorney
A recurring warning in the presentation is the importance of honesty. Not every strong professional profile is an EB-1 profile.
Applicants should be advised early if:
The case is likely to trigger extensive RFEs
Another immigrant category may be safer
Timing constraints, such as H-1B limits, affect strategy
Premium processing should be reserved for clear cases where speed truly matters, as it can increase the likelihood of boilerplate RFEs.
Final Takeaway
EB-1 success today depends far less on counting criteria and far more on narrative coherence, evidentiary depth, and strategic presentation. Kazarian is not going away, and wishing for a return to earlier standards does not change current adjudication reality.
The strongest EB-1 cases are built deliberately from day one, with every document serving both the regulatory checklist and the final merits determination. In a system where subjectivity is unavoidable, clarity and preparation are the applicant’s greatest advantages.