Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse tincidunt sagittis eros. Quisque quis euismod lorem. Etiam sodales ac felis id interdum. Proin viverra nulla sem, vel molestie lacus volutpat nec. Integer ut bibendum erat.
Start for free
EB-1A is the self-petition green card for people at the very top of their field: scientists, researchers, athletes, artists, founders, and educators who can document extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim. You file Form I-140 yourself. No employer required. No PERM. No labor certification.
To qualify you need either a single major internationally recognized award (Nobel, Olympic medal, or equivalent, and almost nobody clears this), OR documented evidence meeting at least 3 of 10 regulatory criteria listed at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3).
Meeting three criteria is the floor, not the ceiling. USCIS applies the Kazarian two-step from Kazarian v. USCIS (9th Cir. 2010). Step one counts the criteria. Step two is the final merits determination, where USCIS asks whether the totality of your evidence shows you are among the small percentage at the very top of your field with sustained national or international acclaim. Plenty of petitions clear step one and fail step two. Strong petitions usually exceed the minimum count and carry independent corroboration at each criterion.
Filing fees as of May 2026: I-140 base $715, plus $300 Asylum Program Fee for self-petitioners. Total at filing without premium: about $1,015. Premium processing (Form I-907) is $2,965 effective March 2026. Verify at uscis.gov/feecalculator before wiring.
Source: 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3). Below each criterion: the regulation text, what counts as strong evidence, and the failure mode we see most often.
Strong: Awards with selection-pool context. A prize given by a national professional society, scope of competition clearly documented, judging panel listed. Conference best-paper awards at top-tier venues count if the venue is named (NeurIPS, ICML, ICASSP, top-tier specialty conferences). Internal company awards rarely count. Lifetime achievement awards from organizations with clear standing count strongly.
Common fail: Listing an award without showing how selective it was or who the judges were.
Strong: Membership in a society that requires peer nomination and where membership criteria are documented and selective. IEEE Fellow, ACM Fellow, AAAS Fellow, NAS membership. The judging body must be made up of recognized experts.
Common fail: Membership in associations that anyone with a fee or a degree can join.
Strong: Articles about your work in trade journals, major newspapers, or industry-recognized media. Must be about you, not just citing you in passing. Bylined article, publication date, circulation or readership context.
Common fail: Quotes in a roundup article. Press releases. Coverage in publications without independent editorial standards.
Strong: Peer review for journals with published acceptance standards. Conference program committee membership. Grant review panels. Editorial board service. Must be documented with assignment letters or organizational records.
Common fail: Reviewing one paper for one journal and trying to make it the centerpiece.
Strong: Independent expert letters explaining what the contribution is and why it matters at field level, citation counts and where the work has been cited, patents that are being practiced commercially, software adopted at scale, methods named after you or your group. The bar is "major" significance, not "significant."
Common fail: Letters that describe your job duties instead of your specific contributions and their downstream impact.
Strong: Peer-reviewed publications in major journals or conference proceedings in your field. First-author preferred. Citation counts as supporting evidence. Naming the venue impact factor or h-index helps.
Common fail: Counting blog posts or company white papers as scholarly articles. Listing 30 publications without showing which ones matter.
Strong: Primarily for visual artists, designers, architects. Solo or group shows at recognized galleries or institutions. Inclusion in permanent collections. Documented selection process.
Common fail: Self-organized shows. Online portfolios presented as exhibitions.
Strong: Senior title with documented authority, org chart showing reporting structure, independent letters from people inside or adjacent to the organization confirming the role's significance. The organization's reputation has to be documentable through third-party evidence, not just self-asserted.
Common fail: Job title at a company nobody outside the industry has heard of, without independent corroboration of the company's standing.
Strong: Salary documented through pay stubs or offer letters, benchmarked against peers in the same field using BLS, Glassdoor, Levels.fyi, or industry compensation surveys. The comparison has to show top-decile or higher compensation.
Common fail: High absolute salary that does not stand out in the actual peer group (because tech salaries broadly are high, the comparison has to be against senior peers in the same role).
Strong: Box office numbers, streaming counts, ticket sales, record sales, with industry benchmarks. Typically for musicians, actors, performing artists. Rarely the relevant criterion for technology or research petitioners.
The Kazarian step-two final merits determination is where many petitions fail. USCIS officers look at the package as a whole and ask: does this person actually rank in the small percentage at the very top of the field, with sustained acclaim? If your three criteria are technically met but shallow, step two will catch it.
Practical implications: aim for four to six criteria, not three. Use the strongest evidence available at each one. Get independent expert letters that say specifically why your work matters at field level, not just that you do the work. Document selectivity at every claim that involves "outstanding," "distinguished," or "leading."
Anonymized case. A computational chemist had publications, citations, and conference talks. The original petition draft claimed criteria iii (published material about you), v (original contributions), vi (scholarly articles), and ix (high salary). After review, the attorney dropped criterion iii because the "published material" was a single mention in a roundup article, and added criterion ii (membership) with new evidence that she had been elected to a selective professional society the year before. Strengthened criterion v with two independent letters from senior researchers at unaffiliated institutions. Approved on first review.
Verify current fees at uscis.gov/feecalculator before filing. USCIS updates the schedule periodically.
The 2025 RFE pattern from USCIS on EB-1A is fairly consistent. Top triggers:
A well-prepared petition addresses each of these proactively in the cover letter and exhibit list. The attorney drafts the legal argument. The platform organizes the exhibits and pulls the supporting evidence into a single navigable file.
The eligibility check scores your background against all ten EB-1A criteria in 12 minutes. You see where the case is strong and where it needs work before the attorney consult.
Score my EB-1A criteriaVisaNow.AI is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Each EB-1A petition is unique and must be evaluated by a licensed immigration attorney. USCIS criteria interpretation evolves through policy memos and case law. Current as of May 2026. Verify regulatory text at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/204.5 and current fees at uscis.gov/feecalculator. Nothing on this page constitutes legal counsel.