Two-Part Approach (the Kazarian case) for EB-1A (Alien of Extraordinary Ability)

Two-Part Approach (the Kazarian case) for EB-1A (Alien of Extraordinary Ability)
Introduction
A USCIS document issued in August, 2010 requires two-step analysis for EB-1A (Alien of Extraordinary Ability), EB-1B (Outstanding Researchers and Professors) and EB-2 (Foreign Nationals of Exceptional Ability).
Two Part Approach
The newest guidelines state that USCIS officers should assess EB-1A, EB-1B, and EB-2 petitions using a two-part approach.
Part 1: Calculating Prongs Satisfied
The USCIS adjudicator must decide whether a petitioner has presented enough documentation to meet the requirements for the immigration classification the petitioner is pursuing as mandated by USCIS rules.
Consider EB-1A For Example: An application for a EB-1A extraordinary ability non-resident must include documentation of receiving a key internationally-acknowledged award, such as a Nobel Prize, or include a minimum of three types of documentation from among the 10 types defined by the rules. When deciding whether the petitioner has received a key award (very uncommon) or has proven at least three of the types of documentation listed, adjudicators examine the evidence given to decide how many of the evidentiary prongs have been fulfilled. After determining that a minimum of three evidentiary prongs or a key evidentiary prong has been fulfilled, the USCIS officer can continue to the second step.
Part 2: Totality test
The USCIS adjudicator must examine the entire packet of presented documentation in its entirety in order to make a decision about whether the non-resident meets the mandatory level of proficiency for the class. In this phase, the officer examines all the documentation to decide if, all together, it proves that the I-140 petitioner fulfills the general requirements for the category.
Consider EB-1A For Example: An officer for an EB-1A case has to decide whether the petitioner is at the highest level of his or her area of expertise. When making this decision, the value of the documentation, such as if the judging obligations were internal, and if the academic articles (if relevant to the job) are cited, are appropriate considerations for the final decision.

Scroll to Top