This case study is based on actual matters handled by Song Law Firm. To protect client confidentiality, all identifying information — including names, nationality, affiliations, and specific dates — has been anonymized and generalized. The narrative consolidates common patterns from multiple cases so that no single matter is identifiable, and certain facts have been altered for confidentiality. Song Law Firm makes no guarantee or promise of any particular outcome. This document is not advertising that promises results. Visa and immigration outcomes vary substantially based on USCIS review, facts, evidence, and policy changes; past results do not guarantee future outcomes. For specific legal advice, please consult an attorney directly.
Client Profile
Korean-American academic researchers, industry experts, and creative professionals with extraordinary records in their field, but where evidence did not “neatly” map to any single criterion of the EB-1A 10 criteria. Highly substantial achievements were present, but did not align with the typical fact patterns of awards or media coverage criteria, requiring strategic argument under the comparable evidence provision. The Final Merits Determination required holistic demonstration of “top of the field” — making it a challenging case. This pattern consolidates common profiles among challenging EB-1A cases handled by Song Law Firm.
Background
EB-1A requires meeting at least 3 of 10 criteria at Kazarian Step 1, then qualitative “top of the field” demonstration at Step 2 (Final Merits). The client group satisfied 3 criteria numerically but lacked qualitative weight under Final Merits, or had achievements in newer/emerging fields where the 10 criteria did not fit neatly. Song Law Firm applied the comparable evidence provision under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) to construct a strategic argument.
Legal Framework
The legal basis is INA § 203(b)(1)(A), with regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h), and the standard at Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).
Step 1 (Evidentiary Review) — count whether at least 3 of 10 criteria are met (or comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4)).
Step 2 (Final Merits Determination) — holistic evaluation of whether the applicant is among the small percentage at the top of the field with sustained national or international acclaim.
USCIS guidance (USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 6 Part F Chapter 2) explicitly accepts comparable evidence — when the standard criteria do not readily apply, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish eligibility.
Song Law Firm Strategy
Song Law Firm applied a four-phase strategy to challenging cases.
First, qualitative mapping of the 10 criteria — explained which criteria fit and which required comparable evidence in a structured table, explicitly arguing the latter under the comparable evidence provision.
Second, Final Merits Determination narrative — explained “top of the field” in qualitative terms beyond numeric metrics. Why the client’s contribution is meaningful within the field’s structure was reasoned in detail.
Third, internationally recognized expert opinion letters — including senior scholars/experts from countries outside the U.S. and Korea to strengthen objectivity.
Fourth, prospective evidence — clarified plans for continued activity in the U.S., emphasizing forward-looking national impact.
Process and Timeline
Materials preparation took longer than typical EB-1A cases. After multiple internal reviews, the I-140 EB-1A petition was filed with USCIS. Where RFE was issued, the response was structured along Final Merits Determination axes.
Outcome
After RFE response, the I-140 EB-1A petition received an Approval Notice from USCIS. The client obtained EB-1A approval and proceeded to subsequent green card steps.
Key Takeaways
When EB-1A evidence does not fit cleanly into the 10 criteria, the comparable evidence provision and Final Merits Determination strategic argument are decisive. Above mere numeric satisfaction of criteria, qualitative demonstration of “top of the field” through a structured narrative determines the outcome. In emerging fields or interdisciplinary work, comparable evidence is the active solution.
Consultation — Four Channels
📞 (201) 461-0031
✉ office@songlawfirm.com
🌐 songlawfirm.com/consultation/
📍 Parker Plaza, 400 Kelby St, 19th Floor, Fort Lee, NJ 07024
⚠ Notice
This case study is based on actual matters handled by Song Law Firm. To protect client confidentiality, all identifying information — including names, nationality, affiliations, and specific dates — has been anonymized and generalized. The narrative consolidates common patterns from multiple cases so that no single matter is identifiable, and certain facts have been altered for confidentiality.
Song Law Firm makes no guarantee or promise of any particular outcome, and this document is not advertising that promises results. Visa and immigration outcomes vary substantially based on USCIS review, facts, evidence, and policy changes; past results do not guarantee future outcomes. For specific immigration legal advice, please consult an attorney directly.
