OUR IMMIGRATION SERVICESEB-1A Visa
EB-1A: a faster route to a U.S. green card for professionals with extraordinary ability
If you can demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and measurable influence in your field, the EB-1A category may allow you to pursue permanent residence without an employer and without PERM. We structure evidence under 8 CFR 204.5(h) and build a final merits narrative aligned with USCIS guidance: independent recommenders, market-based compensation benchmarks, and proof of major significance through adoption, standards, and measurable results.
In short: what you’ll need
- Threshold: at least 3 out of 10 criteria, or a one-time achievement at an internationally recognized level.
- Proven impact: adoption, standards, protocols, independent use cases; citations matter in context of real-world use.
- Verifiable sources: independent letters, industry reports and benchmarks, public records/registries.
- Consistency: USCIS weighs quality and probative value in the aggregate (final merits), with no contradictions across sections.
How we translate accomplishments into evidence that reads clearly for USCIS
EB-1A cases rarely fail because a profile “has too few documents.” More often, the record does not explain the logic USCIS uses: why the record meets extraordinary ability standards, how your work reached “major significance,” and why the supporting sources are independent and verifiable.
That’s why we build the petition as a system: each exhibit answers a specific officer question and strengthens the section before it. In science/tech this is typically “original contribution → independent adoption → measurable impact.” In business, “critical role → product/market outcomes → independent corroboration.” In arts, “venue/recognition level → independent coverage → professional or commercial effect.”
What you receive
- Criteria strategy: at least 3 of 10, or a one-time major award; we select the strongest criteria and align them to final merits.
- Drafting & evidence packaging: independent letters, benchmark tables, standards/protocols, proof of adoption.
- Final merits argument: quality and probative value weighed in the aggregate, with no contradictions across sections.
- Consistency checks: aligned terminology, roles, dates, metrics, and sources throughout the record.
How we run an EB-1A case: from diagnosis to filing
Timelines & pathways: AOS in the U.S. vs consular processing
| Stage | AOS in the U.S. (I-485) | Consular processing |
|---|---|---|
| I-140 (EB-1A) | Premium Processing: ≈ 15 calendar days to a response. Standard timing varies by service center. | Same I-140 timelines; after approval, processing continues with NVC and the consulate. |
| Next steps | Biometrics and I-485 adjudication (timelines vary by jurisdiction and workload). | DS-260, medical exam, interview; entry to the U.S. as an LPR after approval. |
| Key “switch” | Concurrent filing (I-140 + I-485) depends on the Visa Bulletin for your country in EB-1 and your valid U.S. status. | |
Chart: what’s predictable vs workload-dependent
Premium Processing provides a clearer benchmark for the I-140 response timeline, but it does not replace strong evidence. Later stages (AOS/consular) are often variable. This chart is a practical “predictability map” for planning.
Benchmarks:
- I-140 Premium: ≈ 15 calendar days to a response.
- I-140 Standard: timing varies by USCIS service center.
- AOS/Consular: timelines vary by jurisdiction, checks, and workload.
Criteria we commonly document under 8 CFR 204.5(h)
The minimum threshold is 3 out of 10 criteria (or a one-time major award), but the real strength of a case depends on whether the evidence is independent, verifiable, and explains impact.
We establish the award’s stature: issuing body, selection criteria, competitiveness, standing in the field, and public record of results.
We distinguish merit-based selection from “dues-based” access by documenting selective admission and expert review standards.
Coverage where you and your work are the subject (profiles/interviews/reviews), not incidental mentions.
Peer review for journals/conferences, grant panels, competition juries—documented scope, frequency, and venue level.
We prove adoption, independent implementations, standards/protocols, and measurable outcomes.
Quality and context: top venues, field standards (including RFC/guidelines), and “who used it” in practice.
For arts/design: leading venues, curated selection, institutional stature, and public proof of participation.
Not just a title—documented responsibility and measurable influence on key outcomes for an organization or product.
Benchmarking is essential: percentiles, reputable sources, and a full total-compensation breakdown (including equity where relevant).
Works best when independently verifiable: sales, charts, licensing, audience, revenue, third-party analytics.
If standard criteria do not fit the occupation, comparable evidence may be used—with a clear explanation of equivalency and a cohesive final merits narrative.
Common RFE/NOID triggers in EB-1A and how to prevent them
Most RFEs happen not because the file is “too small,” but because the evidentiary logic is weak. USCIS is typically testing three things: source independence, market/field comparability, and a clear cause-and-effect link between your work and field impact (final merits).
| Weak point | Why USCIS may discount it | What makes it persuasive |
|---|---|---|
| Dues-based membership | No selective admission based on merit; open access reduces probative value. | Selection rules, merit thresholds, role of an expert council, and independent proof of selectivity and organization stature. |
| “Major significance” without adoption | Patents/papers exist, but independent implementation and real-world impact are unclear. | Third-party adoption, standards/protocols/guidelines, independent use cases, and measurable outcomes (quality/speed/savings/growth). |
| High salary without benchmarks | An offer letter/contract alone is not “high compensation” without market comparison. | Percentiles, comparable roles/locations/levels, full total comp (including RSU/equity), and consulting rates where applicable. |
| Generic recommendation letters | Independence is unclear; letters read as praise with few verifiable specifics. | Independent authors, concrete facts and metrics, dates and context, verifiable author credentials, and tight linkage to final merits. |
| Citations without “use” narrative | Counts alone do not show why the work matters or how it is used in practice. | Who used it and how: standards/protocols, independent implementations, invitations/awards tied to specific work, and an impact chain to practice. |
| Internal inconsistencies | Conflicts in roles/dates/metrics undermine credibility of the record. | Unified terminology, cross-checked roles and dates, consistent metrics/sources, and a coherent final merits narrative. |
Four pre-filing checks that reduce RFE risk
EB-1A works best when the record behaves like a single system. These four checks usually determine whether the packet reads as strong, regardless of field (science, business, or arts).
Core proof does not depend on conflicts of interest, and the sources’ credibility is easy to verify.
Key claims are supported by sources that can be checked: public records, standards, independent publications, official confirmations.
When claiming high compensation or commercial impact, benchmarking and methodology are clear (percentiles, total comp, comparable roles).
For major significance, it’s clear what was done, who adopted it, how it was used, and what measurable outcome followed.
How to turn achievements into USCIS-ready evidence
Below are common scenarios where a profile is strong, but final merits needs better proof of independence, adoption, and comparability.
Strengthen through independent use: protocols/guidelines, third-party implementations, proof of use in products or workflows, and measurable outcomes (time/cost reduction, accuracy gains, quality improvements).
Strengthen with percentiles and comparable roles, a transparent total-comp breakdown (including equity), and a role-to-impact narrative supported by independent sources.
Strengthen with venue status (curation, institutional significance), independent critique/profiles, and verifiable professional outcomes (sales, licensing, invitations, collection placements).
Frequently asked questions about EB-1A
Answers are framed around extraordinary ability requirements and the final merits assessment.
Do I need a job offer or a sponsor?
How many criteria do I need to meet?
Is Premium Processing available for EB-1A I-140?
Can I file I-485 together with I-140 (concurrent filing)?
Which route is better: AOS in the U.S. or consular processing?
What is “comparable evidence” and when is it used?
What makes recommendation letters strong for USCIS?
Primary sources
Official pages for verifying requirements, visa availability, processing times, and Premium Processing rules.
-
8 CFR 204.5 — governing regulation (including extraordinary ability criteria).
ecfr.gov — 8 CFR 204.5 -
USCIS Policy Manual — USCIS framework for evaluating evidence and interpreting standards.
uscis.gov — Policy Manual -
Visa Bulletin — visa number availability (relevant for AOS and concurrent filing).
state.gov — Visa Bulletin -
USCIS Processing Times — official processing time estimates.
uscis.gov — Processing Times -
Premium Processing — official eligibility and how to request it.
uscis.gov — Premium Processing
EB-1A case assessment
What to prepare for an accurate first review
EB-1A outcomes depend on evidence quality and probative value. A short, structured fact set helps identify the strongest criteria and where the case needs more independence, adoption proof, or market context.
- Profile: field, roles, core results.
- Achievements: 5–10 bullets with scope and outcomes (adoption, standards/protocols, independent use, metrics).
- Proof: coverage about you, judging/review work, awards, public records/registries, independent adoption confirmations.
- Compensation (if claimed): total compensation structure and benchmarking sources (percentiles/reports).
Arvian customer reviews
CONTACT US
If you are located in the US, please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns you may have. We look forward to helping you.
SERVICES
LINKS
CONSULTATION
Arvian Law Firm LLC
Vitalii Maliuk,
ATTORNEY AT LAW (МО № 73573)
Copyright © Arvian Law Firm LLC 2026