Document dossier

EB-1A petition, NOID and response: one case unpacked

Updated: September 30, 2026Author: Alina Kanametova

Source

Document: Scans of an EB-1A petition (712 pages), the notice of intent to deny and the response to it (132 pages) from the chat archive
Issuer: Community chat archive; retold without names, organisations or quotes
Date: 2023

In short

A 2023 EB-1A self-petition in digital product design (interfaces plus development), filed without a lawyer and with premium processing. Nine of the ten criteria were claimed. Two weeks later came a notice of intent to deny (NOID): the officer accepted 5 criteria, rejected 4, and at the second step (final merits) found no sustained acclaim because almost everything was recent. The response went out two weeks after that: 132 pages, a letter plus 8 new exhibits. The final decision is not in the archive.

petition pages: 712; petition pages
exhibits: 51; exhibits
criteria accepted: 5 / 9; criteria accepted
response pages: 132; response pages

How the case unfolded

1Filing: 712 pages, 51 exhibits day 0Forms I-140, I-907 (premium) and G-1145, copies of the passport, visa, I-94 and the approval of the current work status; the petition letter; the statement of plans to work in the US; the index of exhibits; the exhibits themselves.
2NOID: 5 criteria accepted, refusal overall about 2 weeksNot an RFE but a notice of intent to deny straight away, with 30 days to answer (33 if received by mail). Two parts: the criteria analysis and the merits. The legal footing is that the burden of proof is on the petitioner, under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
3Response: a 47-page letter and 8 exhibits about 2 more weeksThe response argued where it saw a chance, added new evidence and rebuilt the chronology. Two of the rejected criteria were not contested at all.
4Outcome unknown afterThe decision on the response is not in the archive, so this dossier does not say whether the response worked. It shows where the petition stumbled and how the response was built.

What the 712 petition pages held

Forms and status copies27 pp.
Each form sits behind its own title page. The fees are stated on the form title pages.
Petition letter49 pp.
Four parts: what the profession is and why it counts as STEM; nine criteria, each numbered to match its exhibits; two final-merits chapters (top of the field via quotes from the 9 letters, sustained acclaim via a chronology going back to 2012); conclusion.
Statement of US plans4 pp.
Current work at a US company with an equity share, a year-by-year plan for three years, market growth statistics, 6 exhibits of its own.
Index of exhibits3 pp.
The exhibit number repeats the letter section number (section 2.2 holds exhibits 2.2.1-2.2.7), each with its page.
Exhibits629 pp.
51 exhibits; the split by criterion is in the table below.

Criteria: claimed, NOID verdict, response

Retold in our own words. Exhibits and pages are from the petition index.

Awardsaccepted3 exh. · 57 pp.

Officer:: Accepted. At step two: all three headline awards came within the year before filing, which shows neither sustained acclaim nor a place at the top.
Response:: Pointed to two awards five years older that the petition had placed not in the awards section but in an exhibit to the sustained-acclaim chapter. Argued that a less famous competition is still international. Against the "assembled for filing" reading, cited the competition rules: only work completed in the previous calendar year was eligible.

Published material about the applicantrejected7 exh. · 121 pp.

Officer:: Rejected. Figures from a domain-traffic estimation service are neither circulation nor readership. "About us" pages and media kits are the publisher promoting itself. No independent evidence of any outlet's standing.
Asked for:: Title, date and author of each piece; the page address on every screenshot; circulation or audience with a comparison against major outlets of the field; the intended audience; data for the very format the piece appeared in (website or print). Plus: the piece predates filing, it is about the person's work rather than the employer, and marketing copy and mentions without evaluation do not count.
Response:: The largest part of the response. For each of the 7 pieces, oldest first: the objection quoted, then the answer. Each piece was pinned to one prong of the criterion (professional or trade publication, not major media). For the old TV segment and magazine interview: historical audience from national news articles citing an audience measurement firm, and an independent description of the channel in a major newspaper. For five websites: audience figures from a third-party web analytics service. One new, older piece was added, with proof of the applicant's role in the project (a portfolio page and a signed acceptance certificate).

Judgingaccepted3 exh. · 38 pp.

Officer:: Accepted. At step two: two juries came through membership in an academy joined shortly before filing, the third was in the same year; no comparison with people at the top (how many entries were judged, what positions were held).
Response:: Cited a court decision holding that the judging criterion does not require proof that the judging invitation itself resulted from extraordinary ability: otherwise the proof goes in a circle.

Exhibitionsaccepted2 exh. · 31 pp.

Officer:: Accepted. At step two: both showings took place within two months before filing.
Response:: Laid out the main project's three-year history: a course project, a prototype, the launch, a mobile version. The point: the 2023 recognition grew out of long work rather than being staged for the filing.

Scholarly articlesaccepted8 exh. · 148 pp.

Officer:: Accepted. At step two: the articles that meet the criterion appeared within a window of about two and a half months; the officer read some articles as science rather than the declared field.
Response:: Went through three five-year-old articles in conference collections, arguing they are design history and interface ergonomics, not science, and pointed to where the issues are published online. For the recent series, explained it was written over months and released gradually.

Association membershiprejected2 exh. · 43 pp.

Officer:: Rejected. For both associations there is no proof that admission requires outstanding achievements judged by recognised experts. Working in the field, minimum education or experience, recommendations by members and dues are not such a requirement.
Asked for:: The bylaws section on admission requirements and proof that applications are reviewed by recognised national or international experts.
Response:: not contested.

Original contributionsrejected1 exh. · 26 pp.

Officer:: Rejected. The main question was the field: most evidence looks like art, some like science, and one petition means one area and one occupation. Support letters alone do not prove the significance of a contribution.
Asked for:: Published material on the work's significance; letters that explain what the contribution is and how the writer knows; citation at a level that shows significance; patents, licences or commercial use.
Response:: not contested.

Leading or critical rolerejected2 exh. · 46 pp.

Officer:: Rejected on both elements. The officer would not treat letters without the writer's contact details as evidence. The organisation's reputation was not shown: a well-known company name does not replace proof of its distinguished standing.
Asked for:: Letters from senior executives who know the role first-hand, with specific tasks and results compared with peers, carrying the writer's name, address and title; separate proof of the organisation's reputation.
Response:: Added a second organisation - the applicant's own studio, led for about ten years, with eight placements in an industry ranking over five years (verifiable online). For the latest employer, attached five news items about its industry awards and rankings. The letters were re-signed with the writers' addresses, and one more was added.

High salaryaccepted1 exh. · 20 pp.

Officer:: Accepted: the salary is significantly above others in the field. At step two: a high salary is not acclaim in itself, and no outside recognition of it was shown.
Response:: Argued, citing court decisions, that at step one salary is compared with the field average, not the very top. Added the previous year's income certificate (two consecutive years instead of one) and statements from two former colleagues on where that pay sat in the market. The petition itself had eight comparisons from four kinds of sources: international salary surveys, a local job site, a ministry figure.

Other exhibits outside the criteria: Profession, CV, work samples (4 exh., 13 pp.); Expert letters (the "top of the field" chapter) (9 exh., 58 pp.); Sustained-acclaim chapter: older awards, future exhibitions, a nomination (3 exh., 10 pp.); Exhibits to the statement of plans (6 exh., 18 pp.).

Step two: what the NOID rested on

Almost everything in the record is dated within the last year before filing. Evidence that existed before the petition was prepared weighs more than material made for it; someone with sustained acclaim should have material that appeared without being asked for.
Awards, exhibitions and the accepted articles are squeezed into windows of two to twelve months before filing.
The judging came through a recent membership and was not compared with how people at the top judge.
The high salary comes with no outside recognition.
Conclusion: five accepted criteria do not show that the person belongs to the small percentage at the very top of the field.

How the response was built: a 47-page letter

Thanks for the five accepted criteria and a plain admission: the petition's structure made it look as if everything happened in the last year.
A list of what the response contains and a citation rule: petition exhibits and new response exhibits are numbered separately; the petition was not resent.
Two court decisions up front: one on five criteria being a strong showing that a refusal must explain away; the other on professional and trade publications not needing the circulation data asked of major media.
Evidence by criterion, and inside each criterion by year, oldest first. Each item: the officer's objection, the answer, the new exhibit.
An argument against step two: the officer demanded top-of-field level criterion by criterion instead of weighing the whole record (citing two courts and USCIS memo PM-602-0005.1).
An objection to the "assembled for filing" reading: the project's three-year history, the competition rules on eligible dates, and an explanation that the articles were written in advance and released gradually.
A one-page chart: achievements by year from 2012 to 2023, one line per criterion.
Conclusion: for each criterion, the year from which recognition has lasted, and the expert letters named as the best evidence of the top.

8 new exhibits

An independent description of the TV channel in a major newspaper
A new, older publication plus proof of the applicant's role in the project
The magazine's audience history and an article about its relaunch
Website audiences from a third-party web analytics service
News about the employer's awards and rankings
The previous year's income certificate
Information about the competition behind the older awards
Re-signed expert letters with contact details (the shared copy stops at their title page)

Authorities each side relied on

Side	Decision or document	Used for
officer	Matter of E-M- (BIA 1989)	the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard
officer	Braga v. Poulos (C.D. Cal. 2007, 9th Cir. 2009)	an outlet's self-description does not prove it is major media
officer	Noroozi v. Napolitano (S.D.N.Y. 2012)	a leading role needs specifics
officer	Lee v. Ziglar (N.D. Ill. 2002)	one petition, one area
response	Muni v. INS (N.D. Ill. 1995)	five criteria as a strong showing; the average salary as the yardstick
response	Zizi v. Cuccinelli (N.D. Cal. 2021)	professional publications do not need the circulation data of major media
response	Buletini v. INS	judging does not require proof that the invitation itself reflected extraordinary ability
response	Chursov v. Miller	evidence is weighed as a whole, not piece by piece
response	Eguchi v. Kelly	at step one salary need not prove the top
response	USCIS PM-602-0005.1	the two-step review and totality at step two

District court decisions do not bind USCIS; citing them is an argument, not a guarantee.

What to take from this case

Three or even five accepted criteria is only step one. The NOID in this case came with five.
Chronology is evidence too. Put older awards and articles in their own criterion section and sort them oldest first; a separate "sustained acclaim" chapter at the end does not rescue a section that shows only the last year.
For each outlet, decide up front what you claim it is - major media or a professional or trade publication - and back its audience with independent data, not an "about us" page or a domain-traffic estimate.
Every letter carries the writer's full name, title and contact details. In this case the officer set aside letters without them.
The organisation's reputation for the leading-role criterion is proven separately, even for a large company famous at home.
One field and one definition of it throughout. Here the letter framed the profession as STEM, the officer saw art in the evidence, and the response then argued the articles were not science.
Juries and memberships entered by application and fee shortly before filing weigh little at step two.
A response layout that is easy to check: objection, answer, a new exhibit numbered separately, a cross-reference to the petition exhibit; the chronology on one page.

Source: scans of the petition, the NOID and the response that a chat member shared in 2023, read with OCR. The applicant's name, employers, outlets, awards, amounts and exact dates are left out and the documents are not quoted. The shared copy of the response stops at page 112 of 132.

What the chats ask about this topic

8×what is final merits
6×how to process final merits
3×what is final merits?
2×what is Final merits
2×What needs to be written in final merits

Community answers

If USCIS counted a criterion based on media but mentioned only one publication out of several in the decision, do you need to address that?: If the criterion has already been accepted, there is usually no need to argue that the officer did not list all the evidence. In an RFE or NOID response, it is better to focus on the unaccepted criteria and the final merits analysis, and to mention additional publications only briefly as further evidence of sustained recognition.
If you received an RFE/NOID, is it better to respond or refile?: There is no universal answer: you need to assess the strength of the original case, the nature of the officer's concerns, and the ability to close the gaps with new evidence. Sometimes a well-prepared response makes sense, and sometimes a new filing with a revised strategy is more practical, but the decision should be made after a realistic assessment of the risks, time, and budget.

Real timelines named in the chats

Stage	Typically	Note
Different USCIS categories: response to a NOID / intent to deny	about 30 days	Messages mentioned the standard response deadline for a notice of intent to deny.

Myths and reality

Misconception: If the required number of criteria is counted for EB-1A or O-1, the case is almost required to be approved; or the opposite misconception: Final Merits is an arbitrary second denial that USCIS can use to wipe out any counted criteria without much logic.

In reality: For EB-1A, after the formal criteria review, USCIS does conduct a final assessment of the totality of the evidence: Final Merits. Meeting 3+ criteria allows the case to move to this assessment, but it does not by itself guarantee approval. At the Final Merits stage, the officer looks at whether the materials as a whole prove sustained acclaim, a high level of recognition, and membership in the small percentage of specialists at the very top of the field. At the same time, a denial should not simply recount criteria that were already credited or express unsupported disagreement. It must explain why the evidence, taken together, is insufficient. For O-1, the logic is similar in substance: USCIS looks not only at the formal items, but also at the overall level of extraordinary ability, although the terminology and standard differ from EB-1A. For EB-2 NIW, the issue is structured differently: the key elements are advanced degree or exceptional ability and the national importance test, not EB-1A Final Merits.

Rules and tips from the chats

ruleRFE and NOID require different strategies: an RFE usually means a request for additional evidence, while a NOID is a more serious denial risk, so the response must be especially strong and targeted.
tipAn RFE for O-1 or an immigrant petition needs to be broken down point by point, not answered with generic language. It is important to understand which criteria or final merits elements are being questioned, and to add exactly the missing evidence, explanations, and independent corroboration.
common questionPeople often ask whether they should withdraw a petition filed with premium processing if there is no response or a negative outcome is expected. The practical rule is that once an expedited petition has already been filed, applicants usually wait for an official response, RFE, or NOID so they have a chance to respond on the merits.
common questionIf you received an RFE/NOID, is it better to respond or refile?

Cases from the community

EB-1A or EB-2 NIW · not specified · outcome not stated

After an unfavorable petition decision, the applicant challenged the denial through an administrative appeal; the appeal took about a year and was sustained, but the case was then returned for additional review.

What they did: Filed an appeal with the administrative body, secured reconsideration, and then waited a long time for the immigration service's final merits review.

Questions and answers on the site

Distilled from the public community chats, anonymised; corpus as of June 2026. These are participants' observations, not legal advice and not USCIS statistics.

Terms: noid · final-merits · sustained-acclaim · major-media · kazarian

Other dossiers

One case retold in our own words, without quotes or the applicant's details. The outcome is unknown; this is reference information, not legal advice and not a forecast of a USCIS decision on your case. uscis.gov.