GCEB1 Collaborates With Zaia Law for Informative Q&A Discussion on EB-1A Category

Last Sunday, on 15/03/2026, Guilherme Zaia from Zaia Law joined us for a highly enriching and instructive session where he elucidated several notions of the EB-1A category for our clients.

Zaia Law is a prestigious attorney organisation that works dedicatedly for legal immigration pathways. They boast a high success rate with EB-1A applicants as well. At GCEB1, while our EB-1A experts specialise in strengthening your profile, we strongly recommend that our clients also seek legal counsel to avoid any legal missteps. This is precisely why we joined hands with Zaia Law to organize an instructive session for all our clients and applicants.

In the session, Mr Zaia presented several illuminating observations about the EB-1A category and its nuances; here, we have unpacked some of these important insights that every EB-1A aspirant can benefit from.

Insight one: historic Nebraska judgment on the final merit determination

Mr Zaia rightly began at a crucial juncture: the recent and significant judgement by a Nebraska Federal Judge on the tradutional two-steps framework implemented by the USCIS. We have also previously covered this Mukherjee vs. Miller case. Mr Zaia points out that this ruling represents a victory for the applicants as it questions the highly subjective and arbitrary ‘final merit determination’ step practised by the USCIS. In essence, the law questions and problematizes the two-step USCIS vs. the Kazarian framework. Yet, he insists a candidate should prepare well to slay the second step as well. And, this is where legal mentorship can help with profile-building mentorship.

Insight two: Pick and work on the criteria you are good at

Mr Zaia, from his experience, has encountered cases where the clients try to work on all the EB-1A criteria. Often, they want to get 8-10 criteria right before they can file. But, Mr Zaia points out the misconception and error in the malpractice. Instead, he suggests that one should pick and work on the criteria one is best at achieving. In his verbatim, “knowing exactly how to reach one’s focus is always the best..GCEB1 can help you and consult with you on how to organically obtain these opportunities for improving your profile, so you are not spending time on ancillary or complementary criteria that are not the main focus of your profile.”

His comments further elucidated the topic by showing that just meeting the threshold of a criterion is not good enough. For instance, you may secure one publication and one judging opportunity to fulfil these two criteria, which would sound solid theoretically. But, during the ‘final merit determination’ stage, USCIS will look for more than the bare threshold. They will check whether there is evidence of your ‘sustained acclaim’ in the criteria you have fulfilled. If they are barely superficial, they will fail to carry any special weight.

Hence, Mr Zaia observes, it is best to focus on the criteria the candidates specialise in. And, it would vary on a case-by-case basis.

Insight three: The context of the criterion matters

Mr Zaia also argues that USCIS does not evaluate a criterion in an isolated manner. They take a deep gaze into the depths of the context. If you have presented your judging qualifications, USCIS will evaluate the nature of the institution you served as a judge for and the reputation of the organisation that invited you to the judging event. Each criterion presents a singular domains of challenges like these. For publications, likewise, you should also steer clear of predatory journals. USCIS will evaluate the nature and the reputation of the journals as well.

In other words, each criterion brings to the table its own set of contextual background.

Insight four: Judging and publishing are usually more accepted criteria

Interestingly, not all criteria are made alike. Mr Zaia observes that judging and publishing are usually considered more objective criteria. They already, by definition, solicit the consent and approval of a community or other peers in your field. In passing, he notes that while patents used to be a thriving criterion for EB-1A once, it is not the case anymore, and USCIS increasingly questions the significance and impact of your patent, more than the criterion itself.

Insight five: the question of original contribution

Last but not least, Mr Zaia discusses the ins and outs of the much-disputed notion of ‘original contribution’ in the EB-1A category. He recalled an experience where the client was a government employee, responsible for inventing several impactful solutions on behalf of the government. While working for the client, he considered media coverage and press mentions of the government-adopted solutions as the central evidence to build his case upon. The emphasis here is clearly on the question of evidence to establish the nature of the original impact. Zaia also cursorily mentions how expert letters could be a great resource to support your foothold in this case.

The informative, subtle discussion, enriched by many first-hand experience did not end there. Our clients expressed many queries, and Zaia patiently addressed each of them with his veteran knowledge. We are thrilled, and our EB-1A experts would be eager to host and organise more insightful webinars like these in the future. We wish you a safe and stress-free immigration journey ahead.