A Critical Step for Academic EB-1A Applicants: The Hidden Standard Behind the “Three Out of Ten” Checklist

Drawing on the latest FY2025 adjudication data and recent AAO decision trends, this article examines the Final Merits analysis within the two-step adjudication framework for EB-1A. A petition should not stop at assembling three criteria. It should focus instead on the standard most central to academic applicants: original contributions of major significance. The discussion explains why strong citation counts and issued patents can still produce a denial, and it identifies the logical chain required to establish an applicant's achievements. The result is practical guidance for scholars preparing a petition or responding to an RFE.

Introduction

USCIS data shows that in FY2025, 12,468 EB-1A petitions were approved and 6,165 were denied, an overall approval rate of roughly 66.9%.

The full-year figure conceals a quarterly trend worth closer attention. The approval rate stood at approximately 74.9% in Q1 and 72.7% in Q2, fell to 66.6% in Q3, and dropped again to 53.4% in Q4. The decline from Q2 to Q3 amounts to 6.1 percentage points, a relative drop of about 8.4%. By Q4, nearly one in every two adjudicated petitions was denied. Newly released FY2026 Q1 data pushes the rate lower still, to roughly 47.5%. RFE rates have climbed over the same period and now run between 40% and 50%.

A clear pattern emerges from the volume of RFEs and denials. Even where USCIS concedes that an applicant satisfies three or more regulatory criteria, the petition may still fail at the second stage, where the dispute shifts to whether the record as a whole demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

I. Meeting three criteria no longer means the case is won

The EB-1A regulations allow an applicant to demonstrate extraordinary ability through a one-time major international award or by satisfying at least three of ten enumerated criteria. As a legal matter, those ten carry no ranking, and no single one is mandatory.

USCIS nevertheless continues to apply a two-step adjudication framework. The first step asks whether the evidence satisfies at least three criteria. The second step weighs the record as a whole (the Final Merits determination) to assess whether the applicant has sustained national or international acclaim and ranks among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.

A petition that formally satisfies three, four, or even five criteria can still fail at the second step. The usual reasons are that the exhibits stand in isolation from one another, or that the claimed impact lacks verification from outside the applicant's own circle.

Mukherji v. Miller illustrates this exact problem. In Mukherji, USCIS acknowledged that the applicant met five criteria: awards, published material about him, judging the work of others, original contributions of major significance, and a critical role in a distinguished organization. The agency denied the petition anyway, reasoning that he had not maintained sustained acclaim after 2015. The federal court held that USCIS never explained which objective standard he had failed to meet and found no legal basis for requiring anyone to remain at the top of a field indefinitely. The court vacated the denial and ordered USCIS to approve the I-140.

Adjudication trends since that ruling show that USCIS has not abandoned the substantive second-step inquiry. The two-step framework remains in operation at both USCIS and the AAO, and a petition must still construct, across the full record, a showing that the applicant belongs among the top talent in the field.

II. For scholars, the deciding criterion is usually original contributions of major significance

Scholars most easily satisfy these three criteria: scholarly articles, peer review or judging, and membership in professional associations. Each of these establishes only that the applicant functions normally within the academic system. By the time a case reaches the second step, a totality of the evidence evaluation, none of them converts readily into proof that the applicant sits at the top of the pyramid in their field.

What genuinely carries weight at that stage is the applicant's original contribution and its effect on the field. A petition cannot stop at describing what the applicant has done. It must answer three deeper questions:

• What important problem did the applicant solve?
• Why should that achievement not be viewed as ordinary work internal to a laboratory or an employer?
• How have independent peers, industry organizations, healthcare systems, government agencies, or other research teams actually relied on, adopted, or extended it?

Citation counts

Citation counts still matter, though total volume alone rarely carries the burden anymore. Recent AAO decisions make clear that a paper in the top 10% of citations for its field does not automatically establish major significance. A percentile ranking shows that work is comparatively prominent; but it does not show that the work redirected a line of research, produced a new methodology, changed clinical practice, or won broad adoption in industry.

Patents

Patents raise a parallel issue. A granted patent establishes novelty and non-obviousness, yet it says nothing on its own about impact across the field. USCIS looks instead at what followed the grant: licensing activity, integration into commercial products, adoption by other companies, incorporation into an industry standard, gains in production efficiency, or measurable economic and social value.

III. How academic EB-1A petitions should be prepared

Avoid writing the petition as a checklist keyed to ten criteria. A strong filing establishes a central conclusion first: which achievements of major significance have earned the applicant sustained recognition, and how those achievements set the applicant apart from an ordinary researcher.

Every exhibit should then corroborate that conclusion: publications show the work was produced, citations show that the work spread, and peer review shows that colleagues trust the applicant's judgment. Media coverage and awards show recognition from outside sources, and a critical role in distinguished organizations shows that significant institutions depend on the applicant's expertise. Assembled this way, the materials form a visible chain rather than a scattering of unrelated facts.

Proving that the applicant developed a particular algorithm, for instance, is not enough on its own. The more impactful and substantive evidence might include other laboratories adopting the algorithm, companies deploying it in products, hospitals folding it into clinical workflows, government programs setting policy on the strength of the research, or later papers treating it as the foundational method for a given technical problem.

Citation volume is the easiest thing for an academic applicant to document and the least persuasive thing to rest on. The question is not how many people cited the work, but why they cited it and what the effects of it were.

IV. Conclusion: the core of EB-1A has shifted from how many criteria are met to what the record as a whole proves

A falling approval rate does not make EB-1A unapprovable, nor does it require a Nobel Prize or thousands of citations. It signals that officers are less willing to accept three criteria met in form alone, and are instead more attentive to whether the record collectively establishes professional influence, sustained recognition, and standing relative to others in the field.

The riskiest approach for a scholar is to scrape together three criteria from publications, peer review, and a handful of recommendation letters, then leave the substantive analysis to the officer's inferences. The sounder path builds the case around original contributions of major significance from the outset, linking each exhibit through independent adoption, quantified impact, and long-term recognition, while preserving a clear record for any RFE or NOID that may follow.

As adjudication continues to tighten, experienced counsel matters more. An immigration attorney's role extends well beyond preparing and filing a set of materials. The greater value lies in developing a clear, workable, forward-looking strategy that accounts for the applicant's professional background, evidentiary foundation, and long-term plans.

Several judgments depend on that experience: whether the current materials support a filing, how to close up evidentiary gaps, whether the timing is right, and which details invite an RFE or a denial. Each rests on years of case work, an accurate read on adjudication trends, and solid substantive knowledge. A mature filing plan is rarely the one with the most exhibits; instead it is the one in which every piece of evidence sits in the right place and serves a single persuasive and coherent narrative.

If you are considering EB-1A, or if you need help with green card strategy in general, add our assistant on WeChat (ID: LawyerinNY) for a professional consultation.