The Kazarian framework

The Kazarian framework (often called the "Kazarian two-part analysis" or "two-step approach") refers to a key adjudication method used by USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) for certain employment-based immigrant petitions, particularly EB-1A (aliens of extraordinary ability), and sometimes applied to related categories like EB-1B (outstanding professors/researchers) or EB-2 National Interest Waivers.

It originates from the 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In that case, the court reviewed USCIS's denial of an EB-1A petition for a theoretical physicist. The ruling criticized USCIS for imposing extra-regulatory requirements during the initial evidence evaluation (e.g., demanding that scholarly articles themselves be "extraordinary" or considering citation impact prematurely). The court emphasized that USCIS cannot add novel substantive hurdles beyond the regulations at the first stage.

However, the decision included dicta (non-binding commentary) suggesting a structured approach: USCIS should first check if the evidence meets the regulatory criteria without extra demands, then conduct a holistic review.

USCIS adopted and expanded this into a formal two-part framework via a 2010 policy memorandum (and later incorporated into the USCIS Policy Manual):

1. Part 1 (Evidentiary Threshold / Criteria Check): Determine whether the petitioner has submitted evidence satisfying at least one of the "major" criteria (e.g., a major international award like a Nobel Prize) or at least three of the ten listed evidentiary criteria under 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3) for extraordinary ability. At this stage, the focus is on whether the evidence meets the plain parameters of each criterion—without imposing additional qualitative demands (e.g., publications count if they are scholarly articles in the field, even if not highly cited yet).
2. Part 2 (Final Merits Determination): If the threshold is met, conduct a totality-of-the-circumstances review to decide if the evidence as a whole demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and that the person is among the very top small percentage in their field (the statutory standard for extraordinary ability). This step allows USCIS to weigh the quality, significance, and impact of the evidence holistically, which can lead to denial even if three criteria are technically satisfied.

This framework aimed to make adjudication more consistent and prevent premature denials based on overly strict interpretations of individual criteria.

Important recent development: As of January 2026, a U.S. District Court in Nebraska (in Mukherji v. Miller) ruled that USCIS's implementation and application of the "final merits determination" step (Part 2) in EB-1A cases was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found it was a substantive rule adopted via policy memos without required notice-and-comment rulemaking, and its application was arbitrary and capricious in that case. The court vacated a denial and ordered approval. While Kazarian itself remains good law (and the case has not been overturned on appeal yet), this ruling has provided grounds to challenge EB-1A denials relying heavily on a subjective Part 2 analysis, though USCIS has not formally changed its policies as of early 2026.

Of late, there’s a growing concern that USCIS may no longer be consistently applying the Kazarian framework, the two-step, evidence-based standard traditionally used in adjudications.

• Decisions may be moving away from structured analysis
• Strong evidence is sometimes being discounted without clear reasoning
• Outcomes are feeling more subjective and unpredictable