By petition category
O-1, EB-1 and EB-2 NIW — where assembly cost is highest.
Merit-based petitions are the most document-heavy filings in immigration practice: 300 to 1,000 pages of exhibits, evidence that has to be argued twice under Kazarian, and citations that break the moment an exhibit moves. They are also the highest-fee work most boutique firms do, which makes assembly cost the single largest determinant of whether they are profitable.
Written for: Firms filing O-1A, O-1B, EB-1A, EB-1B and EB-2 NIW petitions on flat fees
- 18 hrs → 45 min
- EB-2 NIW assembly
- 610 pp
- Median EB-1A binder
- 28.4%
- Category RFE rate
measured across design-partner firms
the largest routine filing in practice
USCIS employment-based adjudication data
Where it hurts, and what changes
Four constraints, four answers.
The same exhibit argued twice
Under Kazarian, an exhibit is argued once under a criterion and again in final merits. Both sets of citations break together when an exhibit is inserted.
Criteria packs for every merit framework
Dhanasar three prongs, Kazarian ten criteria with final merits, and the O-1A eight-criteria set with comparable evidence handling.
Expert letter logistics
Six to ten independent declarations, each needing a CV as a sub-exhibit, each arriving in a different format and at a different time, most of them late.
Coverage scoring before filing
Every criterion shows its exhibit count and depth. A criterion with zero mapped evidence is flagged loudly while there is still time to gather more.
Criterion coverage is invisible
A flat Word index cannot show that criterion (iii) has one thin exhibit under it. That only becomes visible in the RFE.
Citations that survive reordering
Add an expert letter two days before filing and the binder, index and every citation in both the criterion and final merits sections renumber together.
Prong 2 substitution
Records argue the field's importance where the standard asks about the individual. The evidence is often present but never assembled into that argument.
Independence flagging on expert letters
Co-authorship, shared institution and shared funding relationships are surfaced so a letter presented as independent actually is.
Adoption
How firms in this segment actually start.
Most of the value shows up in the first fortnight. Nothing here requires a migration.
- 01
Start from the criteria, not the documents
Open the matter against a criteria pack. The coverage view becomes your client document-chasing checklist from week one.
- 02
Ingest as evidence arrives
Expert letters trickle in over weeks. Each one classifies, maps to a criterion and updates coverage as it lands.
- 03
Assemble and review coverage
The binder compiles with a two-tier index grouped by criterion. Thin criteria are visible before anything is filed.
- 04
Draft both steps
The cover letter carries the criterion-by-criterion analysis and a separate final merits section, each citing real Bates ranges.
Coverage
Classifications this segment files most.
Full visa library →| Classification | Governing standard | RFE rate | Median binder | Manual | Docket Build |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EB-2 NIW EB-2 National Interest Waiver | Matter of Dhanasar three-prong framework 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) | 28.4% | 340 pp | 18 hrs | 45 min |
| EB-1A EB-1A Extraordinary Ability | Kazarian two-step review against ten regulatory criteria 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3); Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) | 28.4% | 610 pp | 22 hrs | 55 min |
| O-1A O-1A Extraordinary Ability in Sciences, Education, Business or Athletics | Eight regulatory criteria with comparable evidence provision 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii) | 28.4% | 285 pp | 16 hrs | 40 min |
| O-1B O-1B Extraordinary Achievement in the Arts or Motion Picture / Television | Distinction standard with six criteria; MPTV uses a separate track 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iv) and (o)(3)(v) | 26.1% | 240 pp | 14 hrs | 38 min |
| EB-1B EB-1B Outstanding Professor or Researcher | International recognition plus three years experience and a qualifying offer 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3) | 24.7% | 380 pp | 15 hrs | 38 min |
Westbrook & Mireles LLP
Austin, Texas
“We were turning away NIW work because assembly capacity, not legal capacity, was the ceiling. That ceiling is gone. My paralegals spend their time on evidence quality now instead of renaming files.”
Dana Westbrook · Managing Partner
Read the case study- 45 min
- Assembly time per NIW
- +40%
- Monthly petition volume
- 9.1%
- Initial-filing RFE rate
from a 15-hour baseline
with the same headcount
against a 28.4% category benchmark
No. It shows what evidence is mapped, how deep it is, and what is missing. Whether the record satisfies the standard is a legal judgement belonging to the attorney of record.
Start free trial
Stop losing flat-fee profit to manual PDF formatting.
Upload one messy client folder. Get back an audit-ready, Bates-stamped exhibit packet with a two-tier index and a matched cover letter — in about three minutes.
14-day free production trial · no card · real matters · no watermark
Software for licensed attorneys. Not legal advice.