Which precedent does an officer cite most often?

Kazarian v. USCIS: mentioned in 64 of 183 whole notices (55 distinct cases), and inside individual criterion analyses in 17 of 150 parsed notices across 13 desks. It is the basis of the two-step analysis - count the criteria first, then judge the record as a whole.

Why does Dhanasar barely appear in EB-1A denials?

Dhanasar sets the test for EB-2 NIW, not for EB-1A. EB-1A notices mention it in 1 of 183, and never inside a criterion analysis; that follows from the corpus being EB-1A cases, not from the decision being unimportant.

What does a zero count mean for a precedent?

First, which of the two counts is zero. Zero inside criterion analyses does not mean a decision goes uncited: Chawathe never sits inside an individual criterion analysis, yet whole notices mention it in 22 of 183 (19 cases) - where the officer explains how evidence is weighed. And both counts describe the language of objections in challenged petitions (RFE, NOID, denial), not the law as a whole.

From the notices

Which precedents an officer cites

Updated: September 30, 2026Author: Alina Kanametova

We count two ways. Across 183 whole notices (157 distinct cases) the most mentioned are Kazarian - 64, Matter of E-M- - 49, Treasure Craft - 38, Matter of Ho - 24, Matter of Chawathe - 22; Izummi - 2, Dhanasar - 1. Inside individual criterion analyses (150 parsed notices) the counts are lower: Kazarian - 17 across 13 desks, Treasure Craft - 9, Matter of E-M- - 6, while Chawathe, Izummi and Dhanasar never sit there: the officer states the standard of proof outside the criterion analysis.

A precedent citation in a notice is not decoration - it announces the rule you will be read by from that point on. Below: what each one means, where it usually sits in the text, and what to do about it in a response.

The sample is notices on petitions that already drew an RFE, NOID or denial: 183 full-text files (157 cases) for the "whole notice" count and 150 parsed notices for the "inside a criterion" count. A count shows how often a decision is cited when a petition is challenged; it cannot say how often it appears in approvals, because approvals are invisible to this data. This is not legal advice; verify the text of a decision against the official source.

What gets cited

Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)whole notice: 64 of 183 · inside a criterion: 17 of 150 · 13 desksThe two-step analysis: count the criteria first, then judge the record as a whole.Most often beside: Commercial success (10), Original contribution (3), Exhibitions (1)
Desks where it appeared: 0592, 0034, 2115, 0024
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (BIA 1972)whole notice: 38 of 183 · inside a criterion: 9 of 150 · 7 desksAn assertion with no document behind it is not evidence.Most often beside: Membership (3), Leading role (2), High remuneration (2)
Desks where it appeared: 0368, 5020, 0070, 0242
Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77 (Comm'r 1989)whole notice: 49 of 183 · inside a criterion: 6 of 150 · 6 desksThe standard of proof: preponderance of the evidence, judged on quality rather than volume.Most often beside: High remuneration (6)
Desks where it appeared: 0318, 0438, 0624, 1642
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988)whole notice: 24 of 183 · inside a criterion: 4 of 150 · 3 desksOne inconsistency lets the officer re-examine the reliability of everything else.Most often beside: Scholarly authorship (2), Membership (1), Published material about you (1)
Desks where it appeared: 0413, 2272
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158 (Comm. 1998)whole notice: 10 of 183 · inside a criterion: 2 of 150 · 2 desksThe same point as Treasure Craft: without supporting documents an assertion does not carry.Most often beside: Awards (1), Original contribution (1)

What never sits inside a criterion analysis

These three are discussed constantly in the community. None of them ever sits inside an individual criterion analysis, which does not mean the notices leave them out: Chawathe is mentioned in 22 of 183 whole notices. A zero here says where in the text a citation sits, not how much a decision matters.

Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)inside a criterion: 0 · whole notice: 22 of 183
Each piece of evidence is weighed for relevance, probative value and credibility; the standard is "more likely than not". Found in 22 of 183 whole notices, but never inside a criterion analysis.
A 2010 AAO decision on the standard of proof: the petitioner must show that what is claimed is more likely than not true, and the officer weighs each document for relevance, probative value and credibility. In EB-1A notices it is cited outside the individual criterion analyses - where the officer explains how evidence is weighed and that "quality, not quantity" counts; 13 of the 22 files also cite Matter of E-M-.
AAO decisions on uscis.gov
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)inside a criterion: 0 · whole notice: 1 of 183
The three-prong EB-2 NIW test - it does not apply to EB-1A, which is why EB-1A notices barely mention it: 1 file of 183.
The 2016 AAO decision sets the three prongs of the national interest waiver: substantial merit and national importance of the endeavour, the petitioner being well positioned to advance it, and the benefit of waiving the job-offer requirement.
Its near-absence here is not a sign it does not matter: Dhanasar governs NIW, and this corpus is EB-1A. If you are preparing an NIW, it is your main reference.
USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5 (NIW)
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 (Comm. 1998)inside a criterion: 0 · whole notice: 2 of 183
Eligibility is judged as of the filing date; a petition cannot be reshaped after the fact.
The 1998 decision: a petitioner may not make material changes so that an already-filed petition retroactively conforms to the requirements. In EB-1A notices it is rare: 2 files of 183, both times with this same rule against material changes after filing.
AAO decisions on uscis.gov

Common questions

Which precedent does an officer cite most often?: Kazarian v. USCIS: mentioned in 64 of 183 whole notices (55 distinct cases), and inside individual criterion analyses in 17 of 150 parsed notices across 13 desks. It is the basis of the two-step analysis - count the criteria first, then judge the record as a whole.
Why does Dhanasar barely appear in EB-1A denials?: Dhanasar sets the test for EB-2 NIW, not for EB-1A. EB-1A notices mention it in 1 of 183, and never inside a criterion analysis; that follows from the corpus being EB-1A cases, not from the decision being unimportant.
What does a zero count mean for a precedent?: First, which of the two counts is zero. Zero inside criterion analyses does not mean a decision goes uncited: Chawathe never sits inside an individual criterion analysis, yet whole notices mention it in 22 of 183 (19 cases) - where the officer explains how evidence is weighed. And both counts describe the language of objections in challenged petitions (RFE, NOID, denial), not the law as a whole.

RFE phrases: what they mean RFE answers by criterion Decisions database

Counts generated 2026-09-30.

Why an officer cites decisions at all

A USCIS notice is not a letter but a reasoned decision, and every citation in it announces the rule you will be read by from that point on. Kazarian sets the two-step analysis; Treasure Craft and Soffici the requirement that an assertion be backed by a document; Matter of E-M- the standard of proof; Matter of Ho the right to re-examine the whole file after one discrepancy is found. Reading which of them appear in your own text is cheaper than guessing what the officer found missing.

The order of the citations says a great deal too. Kazarian sits almost always in the opening section - before the criteria, as a frame; Treasure Craft turns up inside one criterion, right after your assertion is restated; Matter of Ho after a discrepancy has been named. If you see Ho, the answer cannot be confined to the criterion it is attached to.

Counting these citations in a single case proves nothing, so we counted them across 183 whole notices at once, and separately inside the criterion analyses of 150 parsed notices. The difference is instructive: Chawathe never sits inside a criterion analysis, yet whole notices mention it in 22 of 183 - the officer cites it when explaining how evidence is weighed. Izummi appears twice and Dhanasar once: it governs NIW, not EB-1A, and those are different conversations.

The working order is simple. List every decision cited in your own notice, find each one here, and see which part of the text it attaches to: the frame of the whole case, a single criterion, or a discrepancy that was found. Then answer the rule rather than the wording - the officer has already told you which rule your documents are being read by, and restating the same arguments in different words does not move it.