There is no other criterion for EB-1A green card that is as ambiguous and understated as a particular one. Among the ten notorious criteria, this criterion creates the most confusion and bewilderment. It is none other than: ‘original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance to the field.’
Here, we are going to discuss why this criterion remains perplexing despite having the appearance of overstatement. You need the EB-1A experts to clearly guide you through this most important criterion.
Why is ‘Contribution of major significance’ an undefined standard?
The crux of the problem lies in the phrase “major significance” itself. This criterion is not as tangible as the requirements of ‘awards’, ‘reference letters’, etc.
Yet it remains the most essential backbone of your EB-1A petition. Extraordinary ability is almost synonymous with the ‘Contribution of major significance’ aspect.
The Immigration and Nationality Act provides no clear threshold for this criterion. Hence, it leaves the adjudicators with broad discretion.
Hence, there remains a major subjective element in the benchmark. To illustrate with an example, let’s say that the applicants present a patent as evidence of their extraordinary ability. Let’s assume that the patent in question generates millions in value. Hence, one may suppose it to be objectively significant. But, there are more things, unseen and complicated, at work. Since USCIS might not see it as a transformative innovation. The word ‘major’ in major significance seems to be pivotal in this case.
Let’s take another example: a candidate uses an influential paper that has garnered hundreds of citations as a piece of evidence for major significance. Yet, the USCIS can see it as a routine scholarly engagement rather than a paper of extraordinary novelty.
Innovation and impact taken together
Most EB-1A experts will tell you that ‘major’ means innovation and impact in the same breath. And, they are not wrong in saying so.
If a candidate brings originality in their field, yet fails to show real impact, USCIS will, in all probability, sideline the candidate.
To follow yet another illustration, a software engineer might develop a genuinely genius algorithm to solve a specific problem and yet fail to make a good enough impact in their field. Their innovation might be novel and effective, but it may as well be irrelevant to the broader field in question. Generally, the idea of the ‘Major’ in major significance implicitly demands balancing both originality and impact.
As a best practice, an EB-1A green card consultancy will, and rightly so, ask you to prepare a measurable impact of your innovation. That is the only way to show USCIS that you are not only innovative, but your voice is respected in your field. This practice would signal to USCIS that your innovation responds to already existing problems plaguing your field.
However, there is yet another caveat to this practice. The way to measure impact, and the definition of ‘major’, may vary from discipline to discipline. Someone in academia or art may not be able to produce the same measurable analytics as someone in the field of business, engineering, or other industries.
Hence, we have a very specific definition of the ‘major’ depending on the specificity of the discipline, candidate, or the field we are talking about.
The temporal dilemma
Adding to all the preexisting complexities, there is also the question of the temporal dilemma. An EB-1A major significance must be evaluated across time. Recent contributions may show promise but lack sufficient evidence of sustained impact. Moreover, the field might as well be new, and it hasn’t had time to respond or evolve. Conversely, older contributions, even if genuinely transformative at the time, may have become standard practice or been superseded by subsequent developments.
Due to all the lingering complexities, it is best to approach this criterion case by case. We strongly recommend that you work with a seasoned EB-1A expert, instead of relying on subjective or imaginary categories of ‘major significance’. You need to present what USCIS is looking for, not what you think USCIS would want from you.