CALL US: +44 (0)20 8004 3492

Updated Guidance Issued on EB-1 Visa Applications

By Nita Nicole Upadhye

Table of Contents

Updated Guidance Issued on EB-1 Visa Applications

USCIS has updated its guidance on the evidentiary requirements that have to be met by EB-1 immigrant visa applicants, specifically extraordinary ability (E11) EB-1 and outstanding professor or researcher (E12) EB-1 visa applicants.

The guidance documentation now includes examples of acceptable evidence to satisfy the relevant evidentiary criteria and considerations for evaluating comparative evidence, with a primary focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

In particular, the changes include the following:

  • Petitioners may demonstrate that criteria are applicable to their occupation by relying on “detailed, specific, and credible” information. The guidance goes on to say that “a criterion need not be entirely inapplicable to the person’s occupation” to be considered as comparable evidence.
  • Adjudicators would “consider any potentially relevant evidence” while examining the petition in its totality. This applies regardless of whether the material satisfies a particular regulatory requirement or was provided by the petitioner as comparable evidence.
  • The guidance states that “evidence may weigh more favourably on its own” or become more compelling when considered in the context of other evidence.  As such, USCIS states that petitioners must “provide sufficient context… to demonstrate that the evidence meets the relevant criteria.”
  • Examples are provided of situations where the totality of the evidence may be used to help adjudicators assess the quality of the evidence and decide whether the applicant is eligible.

The additional examples offered by USCIS and the factors taken into account by adjudicators while reviewing the material should be carefully considered by employers and petitioners who intend to submit EB-1 petitions under these classifications, in particular, the examples of comparable evidence and explanations surrounding an adjudicator’s consideration of the totality of evidence for roles that do not have typical evidence for the regulatory requirements.

This article does not constitute direct legal advice and is for informational purposes only.

Author

Founder & Principal Attorney Nita Nicole Upadhye is a recognized leader in the field of US business immigration law (AILA) and trusted adviser to large corporates through to SMEs, providing strategic immigration and global mobility advice to support employers with both US and UK operations to meet their workforce needs through corporate immigration.

Nita successfully acts for corporations and professionals, entrepreneurs, artists, actors, and athletes from across the globe, providing expert guidance on all aspects of US visa and nationality applications, and talent mobility to the USA.

Nita is an active public speaker, thought leader, immigration commentator, and immigration policy contributor and regularly hosts training sessions for employers and HR professionals

Need legal advice?

For specialist advice on your query, get in touch with our team of US immigration attorneys.​

Need legal advice?

For specialist advice on your query, get in touch with our team of US immigration attorneys.

Share on social

For specialist advice on a US immigration or nationality matter for your business, contact our US immigration attorneys.

For specialist advice on a US immigration or nationality matter for your business, contact our US immigration attorneys.