Extraordinary Ability
The petitioner generally establishes either a qualifying major international award or at least three of ten regulatory criteria, followed by evaluation of the evidence as a whole.
EB1A Framework →EB1A and NIW can both allow researchers to petition without depending on a sponsoring employer, but they ask fundamentally different questions. EB1A focuses on extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim. NIW begins with EB2 eligibility and then evaluates the proposed endeavor under the national interest waiver framework.
The petitioner generally establishes either a qualifying major international award or at least three of ten regulatory criteria, followed by evaluation of the evidence as a whole.
EB1A Framework →The petitioner first establishes underlying EB2 eligibility and then addresses the proposed endeavor, national importance, positioning and benefit of the waiver.
NIW Framework →EB1A deserves careful evaluation.
NIW may provide the more natural framework.
Both categories may warrant independent analysis.
They use different legal standards. The better category depends on the evidence and proposed work.
Researchers may sometimes have viable arguments under both categories because the legal standards are different.
Neither category establishes a universal citation minimum. Citation evidence should be evaluated in context.
A national interest waiver waives the job offer requirement when the petitioner otherwise establishes NIW eligibility.
Primary legal sources: USCIS Policy Manual — Extraordinary Ability · USCIS Policy Manual — EB2 and National Interest Waiver.