EB-1A Denial Rates in 2025–2026: What Changed and How to Prepare

The Numbers Tell a Clear Story

EB-1A approval rates have been declining steadily. According to analysis of USCIS filing data by Manifest Law and Lawfully, the full-year FY2025 approval rate was approximately 66.9% — meaning one in three petitions was denied. But the quarterly trend is more alarming: Q4 FY2025 (July–September 2025) saw the approval rate drop to just 53.4%, the lowest in recent years. Early 2026 data from Lawfully shows some stabilization around 43% for regular processing in February 2026, though premium processing fares better.

Compare this to FY2022, when approval rates for the broader EB-1 category hovered around 70-75% (per third-party analysis of USCIS data by Manifest Law and Lawfully). In just three years, the odds of approval have dropped by roughly 15-20 percentage points. This is not a marginal shift — it reflects a fundamental change in how USCIS adjudicates extraordinary ability petitions.

What USCIS Is Flagging: Patterns from AAO Decisions

Analysis of recent AAO (Administrative Appeals Office) non-precedent decisions reveals consistent patterns in what gets denied. The most common issues are not about whether the petitioner is accomplished — they are about whether the documentary record satisfies the plain language of the regulation.

Here is what adjudicators are rejecting most often:

• Awards framed as funding, not recognition. Research grants — including NSF grants — are routinely rejected as "awards for excellence" because they fund work rather than recognize outstanding achievement. The AAO has stated clearly that unless the record documents competitive selection criteria emphasizing excellence over project merit, a grant is not an award.
• Memberships without bylaws. Claiming membership in a professional association fails if the record does not include the association's bylaws or constitution showing that admission requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Professional licenses and standard certifications are not qualifying memberships.
• Expert letters without objective evidence. For the Original Contributions criterion, USCIS increasingly finds expert letters alone insufficient. The AAO wants citations placed in field context, evidence of adoption by other researchers, policy implementations, or independent validation — not just colleagues saying the work is important.
• Leading roles without comparative evidence. A senior title does not establish a leading or critical role. The record must show the role was leading or critical relative to others in similar positions, and that the organization or its specific division has a documented distinguished reputation.
• Step 2 failures despite meeting Step 1. Based on analysis of published AAO non-precedent decisions, even among petitioners who meet three or more criteria at Step 1, approximately 40% are denied at Step 2 (the final merits determination). The common denial language: "The evidence showed the petitioner is a competent and productive professional, but not that they have risen to the small percentage at the very top of the field."

The October 2024 and January 2025 Policy Updates

Two USCIS policy updates have changed the landscape. The October 2024 update brought some relief: team awards are now recognized, past memberships count even if no longer active, and published material no longer needs to "demonstrate the value of the person's work." The January 2025 update clarified that awards and recognition need not come at advanced career stages, benefiting early-career applicants.

However, these positive changes have been overshadowed by stricter adjudication in practice. Officers are applying closer scrutiny during the final merits determination, and RFEs are being issued in an estimated 40–50% of EB-1A filings in 2025.

What This Means for Your Petition

The shift is not about USCIS becoming anti-immigrant. It is about a higher evidentiary standard being applied consistently. The petitions being denied in 2025–2026 are often ones that would have been approved in 2021–2022 with the same evidence. The bar has moved.

Practically, this means:

• Every criterion you claim must be supported by documentary evidence that independently satisfies the regulation — not just well-written arguments.
• Expert letters must come from independent experts with specific, first-hand analysis of your impact — generic or templated letters are being discounted.
• Your Step 2 narrative must include comparative evidence showing you are in the "small percentage at the very top" — not just a list of achievements.
• Citation analysis, adoption metrics, and objective impact documentation are now essential for the Original Contributions criterion, not optional supplements.

How to Strengthen Your Case Before Filing

The good news: well-prepared petitions continue to be approved at high rates. Immigration attorneys report that the dichotomy is stark — strong petitions are succeeding while weak ones are failing at unprecedented rates. The difference is preparation.

Before you file, ensure you can answer these questions with documented evidence:

• For each award: Can I document the selection criteria, number of recipients, and geographic scope of eligibility?
• For each membership: Do I have the organization's bylaws showing expert-judged admission requirements?
• For original contributions: Do I have objective evidence of field-level impact beyond expert letters — citations in context, adoption data, policy outcomes?
• For my leading role: Can I show my role was leading or critical compared to others, with org charts, impact metrics, and documented organizational reputation?
• For Step 2: Can I demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim with comparative evidence — not just a narrative?

If you are unsure whether you meet these standards, take our free 2-minute eligibility check to get a preliminary assessment before investing in a full evaluation.