Which EB-1A criteria are worth claiming?

Key answer

Across our set of challenged cases the criteria fare very differently: judging is accepted in more than half of cases, original contribution in a handful. That does not make the hard ones useless - three accepted criteria are mandatory - but it does tell you where evidence is hardest to make stick.

Breakdown from the data

The answers below are translated from the original Russian - the language of the community chats.

These figures come from our set of 253 real cases that drew an RFE, NOID or denial. They are not approval rates: the sample is challenged petitions only. It shows how often a claimed criterion survived the officer's scrutiny.
Ranked by how often a claimed criterion was accepted: judging - 59%; exhibitions - 44%; authorship - 44%; media - 24%; leading-role - 23%; high-salary - 14%; awards - 14%; membership - 12%; commercial-success - 10%; original-contribution - 4%.
The hardest is original contribution: accepted in 9 of 209 claims. The recurring reason is that petitions prove the quality of the work while the criterion asks for significance to the field. Adoption inside one employer reads as a benefit to that company, not a contribution to the profession.
The most survivable is judging (59%), with its own trap: an invitation, a name on a conference page or an agreement to review are not evidence. The officer wants traces of the work itself - what you assessed and when.
The practical takeaway: count the criteria where you have external, verifiable material, not the criteria you can name. Claiming eight and having two accepted is worse than claiming four and getting three.

This breakdown is built on real USCIS notices and public sources, linked below. It is reference material, not legal advice: officers decide similar cases differently.

Why 'worth claiming' is not the same as 'easier'

The spread is enormous: judging was accepted in 59% of the cases in our set where it was claimed, original contribution in 4%. But this is not a list of what to claim: a criterion you have no substance for does not become winnable because it is winnable for other people.

The right order of operations is the reverse. First look at where you hold external, verifiable proof; only then check how hard that criterion is to defend. Claiming eight criteria and having two accepted is worse than claiming four and closing three: surplus weak criteria add no weight, but they do hand the officer material to argue with.

What sits behind the high and low numbers

Judging (59%) looks winnable because the proof is binary: either you assessed someone else's work or you did not. The trap is that an invitation, a line on a conference website and an agreement to review do not count as proof - what is needed is a trace of the work itself.

Original contribution (4%, 9 of 209) fails most often because petitioners prove the quality of their work while the criterion asks for significance to the field beyond their own company.

Membership (12%) and awards (14%) are low for the same reason: what is assessed is not your participation but the institution itself - whether the association requires outstanding achievement, whether the award is recognized nationally or internationally. That has to be proven separately, and it is usually forgotten.

High salary (14%) fails on the absence of a comparable basis: a figure means nothing without a comparison to the same profession and region.

Choosing for your own situation

A researcher usually finds authorship and judging fall into place naturally, and should add original contribution only where there is external adoption. An entrepreneur has leading role and published material about them - and the leading role needs evidence of the organization's own reputation behind it. An athlete or a performer has awards and commercial success, where the selectivity of the competition is what matters.

The general rule: three criteria closed with external evidence are safer than five closed with the company's internal documents.

Sources

USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2 - extraordinary ability criteria
The document officers cite in EB-1A notices: the two-step analysis and each of the ten criteria.
8 CFR 204.5 - the I-140 regulation
USCIS: EB-1 employment-based first preference
The agency overview of EB-1A, EB-1B and EB-1C.

All questions on: Choosing a category All questions on: EB-1A All questions on: The petition and formatting All questions on: Original contribution All questions on: Judging