BLOG

One of the most common misconceptions about the O-1 visa is that meeting three of the evidentiary criteria automatically guarantees approval. This misconception is surprisingly common, even among well-informed applicants and practitioners. Many assume that if an applicant checks off three out of the six (or eight, depending on the specific O1 classification) criteria, the petition must be approved. But in reality, this understanding is outdated. Over the past decade, USCIS has made it clear that satisfying three evidentiary criteria is merely a threshold but not conclusive proof.

Today, O-1 adjudications hinge on what USCIS refers to as a “totality determination.” This means that once the petitioner demonstrates that the beneficiary meets at least three criteria or submits acceptable alternative evidence, the adjudicator then evaluates the overall significance of the evidence. In other words, USCIS considers whether the evidence, even if it meets three criteria, actually demonstrates that the beneficiary qualifies as having “extraordinary ability.”

This heightened standard appears to derive not from the O-1 regulations themselves, but rather from a 2010 Ninth Circuit case, Kazarian v. USCIS, which concerned employment-based permanency residency. Although Kazarian specifically addressed the EB-1 green card category, the decision prompted USCIS to issue a policy memorandum establishing a new two-step adjudication framework for extraordinary ability green card petitions. Under this framework, adjudicators must first determine whether the evidence satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria, and then conduct a final merits determination to assess whether the totality of that evidence demonstrates the requisite level of national or international acclaim.

Although the Kazarian memo applies to green card petitions, not O1s (which are filed using Form I-129), the two-step logic quickly found its way into O1 adjudications. In the years following the decision, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) began using this same approach to uphold denials of O1 petitions, even though it was never formally required. This practice seemed to recede around 2014, but its underlying principles have now returned in force.

USCIS recently made this approach explicit in its Policy Manual. In a newly added section addressing O1 adjudications, the agency confirms that meeting three evidentiary criteria does not by itself establish eligibility. Citing the regulatory preamble, the Manual reminds adjudicators that “The evidentiary requirements are not the standard for the classification, but are instead the mechanism for establishing whether the standard is met.”

The Manual even goes so far as to cite Matter of Chawathe, a precedent decision that actually emphasizes the preponderance of the evidence standard and criticizes USCIS for demanding more. Ironically, Chawathe arguably undermines rather than supports the agency’s heightened approach. Nonetheless, USCIS uses the decision to reaffirm its position: the petitioner must show, through the totality of the evidence, that the beneficiary satisfies the high bar for O-1 classification.

The practical takeaway is this: O-1 petitions must go beyond simply checking three boxes. The quality and significance of the evidence matter just as much than the number of criteria satisfied. Petitioners should aim to build a cohesive narrative, backed by compelling and credible documentation, tailored to the adjudicative framework USCIS actually uses today.