The EB-1A extraordinary ability green card has one of the highest denial and Request for Evidence (RFE) rates of any employment-based petition category. That’s not because the standard is hopelessly demanding—it’s because petitioners (and sometimes inexperienced attorneys) make avoidable mistakes that undermine an otherwise strong case.

Here are the seven most common errors we see in EB-1A petitions, and how to address each one.

1. Filing Before You’re Ready

The most consequential mistake is filing too early. A denial is significantly more damaging than waiting another 12 months to strengthen your record, because a denial or serious RFE:

Creates a record that USCIS will consider in future filings
May delay your overall timeline more than the wait would have
Can suggest credibility issues if you respond to an RFE with dramatically stronger evidence than you initially submitted

Before filing, answer these questions honestly:

Do I clearly satisfy at least three criteria?
Is my record strong enough to survive the final merits determination (not just the threshold test)?
Am I being realistic about where I stand relative to others in my field?

If the answer to any of these is “maybe,” it’s worth spending 6–12 months on targeted evidence-building—additional peer review invitations, a press interview, a speaking engagement at a prominent conference—before pulling the trigger.

2. Weak or Generic Expert Letters

Expert recommendation letters are the backbone of most EB-1A petitions, yet they are consistently the weakest element of self-prepared petitions. USCIS adjudicators have seen thousands of form letters that call the petitioner “one of the most talented professionals I have ever encountered.” These letters carry almost no weight.

Strong EB-1A expert letters:

Come from independent experts who have no ongoing professional relationship with you, or who clearly explain why their letter is valuable despite an existing relationship
Provide specific technical content about the nature and impact of your work, not just praise
Draw on the letter writer’s own standing in the field to contextualize why your contributions are significant
Connect your work specifically to the criterion being invoked—not a general declaration that you’re extraordinary
Are not boilerplate—the language should be clearly specific to you

Getting great expert letters requires identifying the right letter writers and providing them with tailored guidance about what USCIS needs to see. This is an area where an experienced attorney adds real value.

3. Misusing Criterion 5 (Original Contributions of Major Significance)

Criterion 5 is the most commonly asserted and most commonly denied criterion in EB-1A petitions. Many petitioners assert that their work constitutes “original contributions of major significance” but provide little more than a list of publications and a few citation counts.

USCIS wants to see:

Why the specific contributions are major relative to the state of the field when they were made
Evidence that others have adopted or built upon the work—not merely cited it in a literature review
Letters from independent experts who can speak to why the contributions matter, from a domain knowledge perspective
Concrete examples of real-world impact (clinical adoption, product commercialization, policy change, industry standard-setting)

The word “major” in criterion 5 is doing a lot of work. A publication with 50 citations in a field where 1,000-citation papers are common is not a major contribution. Context is everything.

4. Ignoring the Final Merits Determination

Since Kazarian, USCIS conducts a two-step analysis. Step one is the threshold test (meet three criteria). Step two—the final merits determination—is where many petitions that technically satisfy three criteria are still denied.

At step two, USCIS asks: does the totality of this evidence demonstrate that this person has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field?

Petitioners often under-invest in their support letter at this stage. A list of evidence checking off criteria is not sufficient. The support letter must synthesize all of the evidence into a coherent narrative about your standing in your field, and it must preemptively address the question a skeptical USCIS officer would ask: compared to everyone else in this field, why does this person belong at the very top?

5. Failing to Contextualize Evidence

Numbers without context are almost meaningless to a USCIS adjudicator who may have no subject-matter expertise in your field. Consider these examples:

“The petitioner has 1,200 citations” — is that remarkable or average for someone 10 years post-PhD in molecular biology?
“The petitioner earns $280,000” — is that high relative to others in this position? In this market?
“The petitioner has published 35 papers” — in what venues? In a field where practitioners publish 5 papers a career or 50?

Every significant piece of evidence must be contextualized against the norms of your field. BLS wage statistics, field-specific citation benchmarks, comparative curriculum vitae from peer researchers, and field-context declarations from experts are all tools for this purpose.

6. Overstating Credentials

USCIS officers are trained to be skeptical of EB-1A petitions that appear to be overstating accomplishments. If your support letter claims you are “among the world’s foremost experts” in your field while your citation count is average and your only award is a departmental commendation, the officer will discount the entire presentation—including your stronger evidence.

Overstating can also create problems down the line. If you make representations in your I-140 petition that are not supportable, those representations become part of your immigration record and can create issues during adjustment of status, at naturalization, and in any future proceedings.

Precision and honesty are not just ethical requirements—they are strategic ones. A carefully calibrated petition that makes only what it can fully support is stronger than an ambitious one that a skeptical officer can poke holes in.

7. Treating the Support Letter as Secondary

Many petitioners—and even some attorneys—spend most of their effort assembling evidence and treat the support letter as an afterthought. This is backwards.

The support letter is the single most important document in an EB-1A petition. It is where you make the legal argument, connect the evidence to the criteria, and tell the story of why this petitioner belongs at the top of their field. A weak support letter with strong evidence will lose. A strong support letter can win on evidence that is genuinely on the borderline.

The support letter should:

Begin with a compelling executive summary of the petitioner’s achievements and overall standing
Methodically walk through each criterion with specific evidence citations
Anticipate and preemptively address the weakest points of the case
Conclude with a compelling final merits argument that synthesizes the entire record

At Strasser Asatrian LLC, drafting the support letter is where the most time and care is invested. It is the difference between a petition that wins and one that invites an RFE.

The Bottom Line

The EB-1A process rewards careful preparation, honest self-assessment, and sophisticated legal strategy. The mistakes above are common—but they are entirely avoidable with the right approach. If you are considering an EB-1A petition, the most important first step is a rigorous honest assessment of your record and a clear plan for building the strongest possible petition before you file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. Please consult an attorney about your individual situation.

7 Common EB-1A Petition Mistakes to Avoid