USCIS Policy
How USCIS Applies the Kazarian Two-Step Analysis to O-1A Petitions in 2026
USCIS evaluates every O-1A petition under the Kazarian two-step framework: first, a criterion-by-criterion count, then a totality of evidence analysis. Understanding how each step works — and how they differ — is essential to building a petition that satisfies both standards.
The Kazarian framework and why it governs every O-1A petition
The Ninth Circuit's decision in Kazarian v. USCIS established a two-step analytical framework that USCIS now applies to all O-1A extraordinary ability petitions nationwide. The court held that USCIS cannot merge the criterion-by-criterion analysis with the ultimate extraordinary ability determination — those are two separate inquiries, and conflating them was the procedural error that led to the remand in Kazarian. At step one, the adjudicator counts whether the petition satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii)(B). Only after confirming step-one satisfaction does the adjudicator proceed to step two: evaluating the totality of the evidence to determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim.
The framework has been incorporated into the USCIS Policy Manual for O-1A adjudications and is the operative framework at both the Texas and California service centers. Adjudicators are trained to document the step-one criterion count separately from the step-two totality analysis, and RFEs, Notices of Intent to Deny, and denials that commingle the two steps are subject to appeal on procedural grounds at the AAO. In practice, the framework creates two separate evidentiary burdens — the petitioner must first establish criterion satisfaction on a criterion-by-criterion basis, and then separately establish that the overall evidence reflects a career of extraordinary achievement. A petition that addresses only one of these steps assumes step-one satisfaction automatically constitutes step-two satisfaction, which is an error the regulation does not support.
USCIS extended the Kazarian framework to O-1A petitions nationwide through a policy memorandum issued in 2010, even though the decision technically bound only adjudications in the Ninth Circuit. The reasoning was persuasive enough that USCIS chose uniform application rather than maintaining different analytical standards across service centers. The Policy Manual currently implements the Kazarian framework as standard practice for all O-1A adjudications regardless of jurisdiction. Petitioners at the Texas Service Center are subject to the same two-step analysis as those at the California Service Center, and the AAO applies it uniformly when reviewing appeals from either location.
What step one of the Kazarian analysis actually requires
Step one requires the petitioner to provide evidence satisfying at least three of the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii)(B). The criteria are: nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field; membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement; published material in professional or major trade publications about the petitioner and their work; judging the work of others in the same or allied field; original scientific, scholarly, artistic, or business-related contributions of major significance; authorship of scholarly articles published in professional journals or major trade publications; employment in a critical or essential capacity at organizations with distinguished reputations; or receipt of a high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to others in the field.
The step-one analysis is criterion-specific and must be conducted criterion by criterion. An adjudicator evaluating the awards criterion asks whether the petitioner has submitted evidence of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field — not whether the petitioner has general accolades or industry recognition. A certificate from an in-house company recognition program does not satisfy the awards criterion even if the employer is a prestigious organization. A published paper about the petitioner's work satisfies the published material criterion; a published paper by the petitioner does not, because the criterion requires material about the petitioner rather than material authored by the petitioner.
A common step-one error is conflating evidence that addresses one criterion with evidence that satisfies a different one. Letters from experts that speak to the petitioner's general prominence in the field contribute to step-two totality analysis but do not substitute for criterion-specific documentary evidence at step one. An adjudicator who finds that the petitioner's expert letters are the only evidence submitted for the critical role criterion will count that criterion as unsatisfied, regardless of how impressive the letters are. The expert letters should accompany criterion-specific exhibits — employment verification, organizational charts, contracts, or reporting structure documentation — that independently satisfy the criterion on their documentary merits.
How the step-two totality analysis differs from step one
At step two, the adjudicator evaluates whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner has achieved 'sustained national or international acclaim' and is among 'the small percentage at the top of the field of endeavor.' The step-two analysis is not a continuation of the step-one count — satisfying three criteria does not automatically mean the petitioner passes step two. The adjudicator must look at the evidence holistically and ask whether it collectively tells the story of a career at the pinnacle of the field. Evidence that barely crosses the step-one threshold for three criteria, without additional supporting material, is more likely to face a step-two problem than evidence that strongly satisfies three criteria with supplemental context from expert letters and independent documentation.
The Policy Manual instructs adjudicators to consider the type, quality, and quantity of evidence submitted, the prominence and reputation of the petitioner's achievements, and whether the evidence reflects recognition by the relevant professional community. A single award from a major international competition carries more weight at step two than fifteen certificates from smaller programs. An appointment to a peer review panel for a flagship journal contributes more to step-two totality than memberships in minor professional associations. The qualitative assessment at step two is where expert letters, independent press coverage, and evidence of the petitioner's influence on the field play their most significant role in the overall petition strategy.
Step two also considers whether the evidence reflects recognition that is current rather than historical. An adjudicator reviewing a petition in 2026 who finds that all of the petitioner's significant achievements date from 2015 or earlier may conclude that the petitioner's claim to 'sustained acclaim' has weakened. The regulation requires sustained national or international acclaim, and USCIS interprets 'sustained' to mean ongoing, not merely historical. Petitioners who have strong historical credentials but whose recent work has been less prominent should address this directly in the attorney brief, either by presenting evidence of continued activity and recognition or by arguing that the historical record is consistent with a field where acclaim is earned over careers rather than recertified annually.
Common ways petitions fail at step two despite satisfying step one
The most common step-two failure mode is a petition that satisfies three criteria at the minimum threshold level without additional context or supporting material. A petition that shows one award from a regional professional society, one published article about the petitioner in a trade magazine, and a salary at the 91st percentile has technically satisfied three criteria. But if the award comes from a local chapter of a national organization rather than the national competition, the published article is a brief mention rather than a profile, and the high salary evidence lacks context about the employer's prestige or the petitioner's standing at the organization, an adjudicator may conclude at step two that the evidence does not support a finding of extraordinary ability despite the step-one count.
A second failure mode is inadequate expert letter support. Expert letters that speak in general terms — describing the petitioner as highly qualified, well-regarded, and consistently producing excellent work — do not provide step-two support in any meaningful way. The letters that support step-two analysis identify specific contributions the petitioner has made to the field, explain the significance of those contributions in concrete terms the adjudicator can evaluate, and place the petitioner's achievements in the context of the field's competitive landscape. A letter from a highly credentialed independent expert that makes these specific claims carries qualitatively different evidentiary value than a generic endorsement from a professional acquaintance who has known the petitioner for many years.
A third failure mode is misalignment between the criterion evidence and the step-two narrative. A petition that satisfies criteria in three different areas — awards, scholarly articles, and judging — but where those three areas describe three different subfields or projects rather than a coherent career narrative, may leave an adjudicator uncertain about where the petitioner's claimed extraordinary ability actually lies. Step-two analysis evaluates the petitioner's achievement in a specific field of endeavor. If the evidence suggests that the petitioner has accomplished respectable things in several adjacent areas rather than extraordinary achievement in one defined field, the step-two conclusion is harder to support, and the attorney brief must synthesize the evidence into a coherent field-specific narrative.
How USCIS weighs contradictory or thin evidence at each step
USCIS does not disregard evidence unfavorable to the petitioner at either step of the Kazarian analysis. At step one, an adjudicator who finds that an exhibit purporting to satisfy the awards criterion documents an internal company recognition rather than a nationally recognized prize will count the criterion as unsatisfied and issue an RFE identifying the deficiency. The RFE is not an adverse determination; it is a request for additional evidence that would allow the adjudicator to reach a conclusion on the criterion. The appropriate response to a step-one RFE is to provide criterion-specific documentary evidence that is stronger than what was initially submitted, not to repeat the same arguments with different emphasis in the brief.
At step two, USCIS can give varying weight to different pieces of evidence based on their credibility and relevance. An expert letter from a credentialed independent expert who has no professional relationship with the petitioner carries more weight than a letter from a former supervisor or a current employer, because the adjudicator must assess the objectivity of the source. An award from a competition where the petitioner's former mentor chaired the selection committee is more vulnerable to a discounting argument than an award from a peer-reviewed competition where the petitioner had no documented relationship with any juror. The credibility of the evidence source matters at step two in ways that do not arise in the same way at step one.
When evidence points in contradictory directions — for example, an expert letter describing the petitioner as one of the leading figures in the field, combined with press coverage that describes the petitioner in more modest terms — an adjudicator is not required to resolve the contradiction in the petitioner's favor. The burden of proof rests with the petitioner throughout both steps. A petition that relies heavily on self-serving exhibits while lacking independent verification from disinterested third-party sources gives the adjudicator little basis to find that the positive claims in the expert letters accurately reflect the petitioner's standing in the broader professional community rather than the assessments of professional associates with an interest in the petition's outcome.
How to structure a petition to address both Kazarian steps
The most effective O-1A petitions present evidence in the brief in a way that mirrors the Kazarian two-step structure. The brief should open with a step-one criterion analysis section that addresses each criterion individually, identifies the specific exhibits submitted for that criterion, and explains how those exhibits satisfy the regulatory standard. The step-one section should be organized by criterion, not by type of evidence. After establishing step-one satisfaction for at least three criteria, the brief should transition explicitly to a step-two totality section that synthesizes the criterion evidence into a career narrative, incorporates expert letter support, and makes the ultimate extraordinary ability argument under the sustained national or international acclaim standard.
For petitioners who satisfy more than three criteria, the step-two section benefits from mentioning the additional criteria as further corroboration of extraordinary ability. A petitioner who satisfies five criteria has a stronger step-two argument than one who satisfies exactly three, because the breadth of the evidence base reduces the risk that any individual criterion is evaluated as barely meeting threshold. The step-two section should identify the petitioner's specific contribution to the field — the publication, technique, award, or role that most clearly exemplifies the extraordinary ability claim — and use the additional criterion evidence as supporting context rather than leading with it or repeating the step-one analysis in summary form.
Commissioning independent expert letters specifically for totality support, distinct from letters prepared to address individual criteria, is a common strategy for strengthening step-two analysis. A totality support letter asks a highly credentialed expert to assess the petitioner's overall standing in the field relative to peers, without limiting the expert to addressing a single criterion. This type of letter, from an expert who is genuinely independent and credentialed, provides the adjudicator with exactly what step-two analysis requires: a professional assessment from inside the relevant community that the petitioner's career, viewed as a whole, reflects extraordinary achievement. One well-crafted totality letter from the right expert can anchor a step-two argument that is otherwise adequate but not compelling on its own.
What we typically gather for this kind of case
| Document | Where to source | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed publications | Web of Science / Scopus exports | Anchors original-contributions and authorship criteria |
| Citation analysis | Google Scholar profile + ESI top-1% data | Quantifies major significance in the field |
| Salary benchmark | BLS OEWS for SOC code + locality | Documents high-salary criterion at 90th-percentile or above |
| Critical-role letters | Direct supervisor + program director | Establishes role's importance, not just title |
What we see go wrong, again and again
- 01Treating extraordinary ability as a credentials checklist rather than a story of field-wide impact.
- 02Submitting bibliometric data (h-index, citation counts) without explaining what makes those numbers high relative to peers in the same sub-field.
- 03Relying on letters from collaborators or co-authors rather than independent experts who can speak to influence.