Quick answer: The EB-1A statute and its ten regulatory criteria have not changed, but USCIS adjudication outcomes have changed dramatically. Official USCIS data show the approval rate among decided EB-1A petitions falling from about 74.7% in Q1 FY2025 to 53.4% in Q4 FY2025, 47.5% in Q1 FY2026, 41.8% in Q2 FY2026, and approximately 32.2% in Q3 FY2026. That data establishes a sharp, six-quarter decline in the approval rate, although it does not by itself establish why a greater share of decided petitions are being denied. In our practice, we are seeing greater emphasis on objective evidence of sustained acclaim and field-level impact rather than generalized praise.

EB-1A Approval Rates Have Fallen Sharply: The Official Numbers

USCIS released its Q3 FY2026 I-140 performance data on September 8, 2026, and the trend is stark. Among EB-1A petitions decided that quarter (April–June 2026), only about 32.2% were approved — roughly 1,348 approvals against approximately 2,832 denials. That continues a six-quarter decline:

Quarter	EB-1A Approval Rate
FY2025 Q1	74.7%
FY2025 Q2	72.7%
FY2025 Q3	66.5%
FY2025 Q4	53.4%
FY2026 Q1	47.5%
FY2026 Q2	41.8%
FY2026 Q3	32.2%

Put differently, the approval rate among decided EB-1A petitions fell by 42.5 percentage points in just six quarters — from nearly three out of four decided petitions to fewer than one out of three.

This data establishes that the denial rate has risen sharply. It does not, by itself, establish why — whether from a change in adjudication practice, a different mix of filings, or some combination. What follows is our attorneys’ observation of what’s actually showing up in cases we’re handling right now.

What Is the EB-1A Extraordinary Ability Green Card?

The EB-1A is an employment-based, first-preference green card category for individuals who can demonstrate extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, evidenced by sustained national or international acclaim. Unlike most employment-based categories, it doesn’t require a job offer or labor certification. Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), a petitioner must either show a one-time major achievement (such as a Nobel Prize) or satisfy at least three of ten enumerated criteria, and then survive a second-stage “final merits” review.

What Hasn’t Changed in 2026

The underlying law is stable. As Sam Shihab noted on the livestream, “the law of EB1A is the same as it was a year ago, two years ago, five years ago.” INA § 203(b)(1)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) remain unamended, and the two-step Kazarian framework — first confirming the threshold criteria are met, then evaluating the record as a whole for sustained acclaim — remains current USCIS policy.

One nuance worth noting: USCIS has periodically updated its interpretive policy guidance on how certain criteria are read, even without any statutory or regulatory change. In October 2024, for example, USCIS issued clarifications affecting how team awards, past memberships, published material, and exhibitions are evaluated. That’s a difference in interpretation, not a rewrite of the underlying test.

What We Are Seeing in 2026: Greater Scrutiny of the Evidence Behind the Claim

USCIS has long been permitted to weigh the credibility of recommendation letters rather than accept them at face value — that is not new to 2026. What does appear more pronounced in the current adjudication environment is the importance of corroborating those letters with objective evidence: citations, adoption of the applicant’s work, revenue, downloads, patents or licenses, independent media coverage, industry metrics, or other proof of impact beyond the applicant’s immediate circle.

As Sam Shihab put it on the livestream, if you invented a product, “don’t just have people tell you it’s cool. Give evidence that it’s quantifiable.”

Leading or Critical Role: Division-Level Roles Still Count, But They Must Be Proven

USCIS policy continues to expressly recognize a leading or critical role performed for an organization, establishment, or a division or department of one. A petitioner does not have to show they led an entire company to meet this criterion. But simply holding an important-sounding title within a team is not enough on its own — the evidence has to establish what made the role leading or critical to the relevant organization’s, division’s, or department’s activities, and that the entity itself has a distinguished reputation. AAO Decision — Leading/Critical Role, Division or Department (Oct. 4, 2024)

In practice, scale can be relevant to that showing, but size alone does not establish distinguished reputation — USCIS weighs multiple factors, including longevity, media coverage, awards, and industry rankings. A major division of a company like Amazon may independently carry substantial size, revenue, visibility, or industry importance across several of those factors. A five-person unit inside a small company presents a harder evidentiary question. But the legal inquiry has always been the role performed and the distinguished reputation of the relevant organization, establishment, division, or department — not company-wide leadership as a categorical requirement.

Scholarly Authorship: Meeting the Criterion Is Different From Proving Extraordinary Ability

The regulatory criterion for scholarly articles requires evidence of the applicant’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The regulation does not require the applicant to be the first or corresponding author, and co-authorship — including as a third or fourth author — can satisfy this criterion. In one 2024 case, USCIS’s Administrative Appeals Office found that a petitioner who had co-authored at least nine scholarly articles satisfied this criterion on that basis.

But meeting the authorship criterion is only the threshold step. At the final-merits stage, USCIS may still weigh the significance and impact of the applicant’s publications — citations, independent use of the work, and the stature of the publications — in deciding whether the applicant has actually achieved sustained national or international acclaim.

Judging the Work of Others: Participation Has Long Needed to Be Proven, Not Just Offered

USCIS has long required evidence of actual participation as a judge, not simply an invitation to serve as one — that distinction isn’t a 2026 development. Judging claims are receiving continued scrutiny where the record shows only an invitation rather than proof that the applicant actually performed the judging.

Final Merits: The Bar Was Never Just Three Criteria

Meeting three of the ten regulatory criteria has never, by itself, ended the inquiry under the Kazarian framework. Once the threshold evidentiary requirement is satisfied, USCIS considers the record as a whole to determine whether the applicant has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. In our practice, what appears different in the current environment is the frequency with which final-merits analysis is becoming outcome-determinative. The published USCIS statistics establish a sharp decline in overall approval rates, but they do not disclose whether individual denials occurred at the threshold-criteria stage or at final merits.

A Practitioner Observation: RFEs That Rely on Standardized Language

Some practitioners have reported receiving RFEs that lean heavily on standardized policy language without clearly identifying why specific submitted evidence was found deficient. USCIS does not publish national data measuring how often this occurs, so this should be understood as a practitioner observation rather than an established, agency-wide statistic.

Premium processing (currently $2,805 for Form I-140) guarantees faster USCIS action — not a faster approval. That action can be an approval, a denial, an RFE, or another qualifying step. Some practitioners reassess premium processing case by case, particularly where speed isn’t strategically necessary and the case is likely to draw heavier evidentiary scrutiny either way.

Strategy: Build an Approvable Case at Filing — Don’t Assume an RFE Will Give You a Second Chance

As a filing strategy, a petition should be built to be approvable on the initial record. An RFE may provide an opportunity to clarify or supplement that record, but the petitioner must establish that the eligibility requirements were satisfied as of the filing date.

The One Constant: Relatability

The attorneys closed on a practical point that runs through the entire discussion: as a practical matter, the easier it is for an adjudicator to understand why an accomplishment matters, the easier it is to evaluate the evidence supporting it. Comparing AI work to a widely known tool, or noting that a manufactured part appears in vehicles from a recognizable automaker, does more for a case than dense, jargon-heavy technical description.

What Applicants Should Do Right Now

Corroborate letters with objective evidence. Pair recommendation letters with citations, revenue, downloads, patents, licenses, or independent media coverage wherever possible.
Document the reputation of your division or department, not just your title. A division-level leading role can still qualify — the record needs to prove the role and the entity’s distinguished reputation using multiple factors, not size alone.
Don’t assume author position disqualifies your published work. Co-authorship, including third- or fourth-author positions, can satisfy the scholarly authorship criterion; focus instead on the significance and citation of the work.
Only claim judging you can document. An invitation alone isn’t evidence of actual participation.
File your strongest case the first time. Build the initial record to be approvable on its own; don’t rely on an RFE to complete it.
Talk to an immigration attorney before filing. With approval rates falling as sharply as the current data shows, individualized strategy matters more than a generic checklist.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the EB-1A law changed in 2026?
No. The statute (INA § 203(b)(1)(A)) and the regulatory criteria (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)) are unchanged. USCIS has updated some interpretive policy guidance, but there has been no 2026 amendment replacing the basic statutory or regulatory test.
How much have EB-1A approval rates actually fallen?
Based on official USCIS I-140 performance data, the EB-1A approval rate among decided petitions fell from 74.7% in Q1 FY2025 to approximately 32.2% in Q3 FY2026 — a decline of 42.5 percentage points over six quarters.
Does a division-level leadership role still qualify for the “leading or critical role” criterion?
Yes. USCIS policy expressly recognizes a leading or critical role performed for a division or department of an organization, not only company-wide leadership. The evidence must still establish the role’s significance and the entity’s distinguished reputation, evaluated using multiple factors rather than size alone.
Do I need to be the lead author to satisfy the scholarly authorship criterion?
No. The regulation requires authorship of scholarly articles; it does not require first, corresponding, or lead-author status. Co-authorship, including as a third or fourth author, can satisfy the criterion.
Is meeting three of the ten criteria enough to get an EB-1A approved?
No, and this has never been the case. Meeting three criteria satisfies only the threshold step. USCIS then applies a final-merits review of the record as a whole to determine sustained national or international acclaim.

Talk to an Immigration Attorney About Your EB-1A Case

EB-1A outcomes have shifted quickly, and how a specific case will be evaluated depends heavily on individual facts. If you’re considering an EB-1A petition or have received an RFE, contact Shihab Burke Immigration Lawyers at immigrationvisaattorney.com or 614-791-0500. You can also submit your immigration question for one of our live Q&A sessions at ImmigrationQuestions.US.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law, policy, and adjudication practices change frequently, and how current trends may apply to your case depends on your specific facts. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before making decisions based on this information.