EB-1A Approval Rate Fell from 74% to 53%: What Attorneys Must Do Now

In Q1 FY2025, 74.7% of adjudicated EB-1A petitions were approved. Four quarters later, in Q4 FY2025, the rate was 53.4%. Filing volume was essentially unchanged throughout — roughly 7,400 petitions per quarter. Denials nearly doubled.

This is not a statistical fluctuation. It is a structural shift in the adjudication environment. Every petition that an attorney files today enters an evaluation framework that is measurably more demanding than the one that existed twelve months ago.

From Three-in-Four to a Coin Flip

The 21-point decline in EB-1A approval rates within a single fiscal year is significant in both absolute and comparative terms.

In Q1 FY2025, the approval rate (74.7%) meant roughly three in four petitioners succeeded at adjudication. That is a relatively forgiving environment. Strong petitions and borderline petitions both pass at high rates when the baseline is above 70%.

At 53.4%, the math is different. Half of adjudicated petitions fail. In a 53% environment, the space between strong petitions and borderline petitions is where all the outcomes differ. The petitions that were previously passing on the strength of the claim alone — without a fully developed totality argument, without independent external evidence, without expert letters that go beyond generic praise — are the ones that are now failing.

The quarterly breakdown from USCIS official data makes the trajectory unambiguous:

Quarter	Period	Approval Rate	Denials
Q1	Oct–Dec 2024	74.7%	1,091
Q2	Jan–Mar 2025	72.7%	1,276
Q3	Apr–Jun 2025	66.5%	1,765
Q4	Jul–Sep 2025	53.4%	2,033

Source: USCIS Form I-140 FY2025 Q4. See the full FY2025 data analysis for complete quarterly tables and country breakdowns.

The slope has been consistent. There is no basis in the available data to expect Q1 FY2026 to return to Q1 FY2025 levels without a documented policy reversal.

What Is Driving the Decline

The USCIS performance data reports outcomes, not causes. The data rules out some explanations and is consistent with others.

What the data rules out:

• "Lower-quality applicants." Filing volume was flat — 7,370 in Q1, 7,464 in Q4. If the applicant pool quality had declined, you would expect some change in filing volume or in the composition of countries of origin. Neither changed materially.
• "Seasonal variation." All four quarters of FY2025 show a monotonic decline. True seasonal variation would not produce a consistent one-directional trend over 12 months.

What the data is consistent with:

• Adjudication standards that became more demanding over the course of FY2025.
• Officer training or internal guidance changes that applied a more rigorous Kazarian Step 2 analysis.
• Increased USCIS scrutiny of specific evidence types (paid media, employer letters, industry-only awards) that had previously passed under a more permissive standard.

Regardless of cause, the practitioner response is the same: treat the current environment as one where the evidence standard is higher than it was in FY2024, and prepare accordingly.

What a 53% Rate Means for Evidence Standards

When the adjudication environment tightens, the cases that succeed are not the ones that always would have succeeded — they are the ones with evidence that holds up under heightened scrutiny.

The EB-1A regulatory standard has not changed. The criteria are still defined at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3). The USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2 still describes the adjudication framework. What has changed is where on the evidentiary spectrum the line is being drawn.

Evidence that is likely underperforming in the current climate:

Employer-only documentation. Letters from current or former employers describing the beneficiary's role and impact carry inherently limited weight because of the financial relationship. An employer letter that says "she was our top engineer" describes internal hierarchy, not national or international acclaim.

Paid media placements. Forbes Council contributor articles, CEO Weekly features, TechTimes profiles, and similar pay-to-publish outlets have been identified by USCIS as purchased placements rather than independent editorial recognition. Including these as Criterion 3 evidence (published material about the person) risks undermining credibility across the petition. See the EB-1A evidence architecture guide for the specific outlets that have been flagged.

Self-nomination awards. Globee Awards, Stevie Awards, and similar programs where the nominee or their employer initiates the entry and pays a fee do not satisfy Criterion 1 as peer-recognition awards. Including them has been specifically identified in USCIS denial patterns.

Generic expert letters. Letters that describe the beneficiary as "outstanding" or "one of the best" without specific verifiable claims about their unique contributions provide minimal adjudicative value. In a 53% environment, generic praise letters may actively harm the petition by signaling that stronger substantiation was not available.

Evidence that continues to carry weight:

Independent external recognition. Citations in the scientific or professional literature, invitations from international conferences, journal editor or peer review roles at publications with genuine external selection criteria, and media coverage by outlets with actual editorial standards that mention the beneficiary without compensation.

Verifiable impact. Documentation that the beneficiary's specific work — an algorithm, a clinical protocol, a design, a body of research — has been adopted by third parties, cited by independent researchers, or applied in commercial or governmental contexts outside their own organization.

Expert letters with specific claims. Letters that cite specific publications, name specific contributions, and explain why those contributions are significant to the field — rather than asserting significance — support the Kazarian Step 2 totality argument in a way that generic letters cannot.

The Kazarian Step 2 Problem in a Tighter Climate

The Kazarian two-step framework — established by Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) and codified in USCIS adjudication policy — requires satisfying two distinct evidentiary burdens.

Step 1: Meet three of ten criteria under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3). This is a threshold, not a measure of strength.

Step 2: Demonstrate, in a final merits determination, that the totality of evidence establishes the beneficiary has risen to the very top of their field of endeavor with sustained national or international acclaim.

A petition that clearly satisfies Step 1 can and frequently does fail at Step 2. The Mukherji v. Miller ruling (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026, Docket 4:24-CV-3170) challenged the legal validity of the Step 2 framework under the APA, but its practical effect on USCIS adjudication has been limited — USCIS continues to apply the two-step standard. See EB-1A Final Merits Denial for the full Mukherji analysis.

In a 74% approval environment, a well-supported Step 1 showing often carries the petition through. In a 53% environment, it does not. The petitions that are failing are, increasingly, ones where criteria are established but the totality argument is thin.

What a stronger Step 2 argument requires:

• A narrative that frames the beneficiary's contribution in terms of impact on the field, not just scope of role
• Expert letters that explain why the beneficiary's work matters to practitioners and researchers who are not the beneficiary's employer
• Evidence that acclaim is sustained — not a single award, a single citation spike, or a single media appearance, but a pattern
• A clear field definition that makes "top of the field" a meaningful and verifiable claim

How Expert Letters Must Change

Expert letters are the single most attorney-controlled element of an EB-1A petition. In a tighter adjudication environment, they carry more weight and are scrutinized more carefully.

Five requirements that matter more now than before:

Independence. Letters from the beneficiary's current employer, past employer, or close professional collaborators provide limited weight because the relationship creates an obvious bias. The most valuable letters come from researchers, practitioners, or executives who know of the beneficiary's work but have no financial or employment relationship with them.

Specificity. A letter that states "Dr. X is widely recognized as a leader in machine learning optimization" is not a Step 2 argument — it is an assertion. A letter that states "Dr. X's 2023 paper on gradient compression reduced training time for large language models by 23%, a result that was independently replicated in two subsequent studies and adopted in production by three separate research groups, none of which Dr. X has an affiliation with" is a Step 2 argument.

No identical language. USCIS has flagged petitions where expert letters share identical or near-identical phrasing, treating this as evidence that letters were provided to witnesses rather than independently authored. Each letter must reflect the writer's independent assessment in their own voice.

Field authority. The letter writer's own credentials should establish why their judgment is meaningful. A letter from someone without demonstrated expertise in the beneficiary's field, or from a professional whose credentials are not clearly established in the letter, contributes less than a letter from someone recognized in the field.

Volume. Current practice supports 5–8 expert letters from independent sources. Fewer than 5 leaves the totality argument underdeveloped; more than 8 begins to suggest that the letters are compensating for weak evidence rather than reinforcing strong evidence. See the expert letters complete guide for full criteria.

Pre-Filing Audit Checklist for the Current Climate

Before filing in FY2026, run through the following assessment for each petition:

Evidence audit:

• Each claimed criterion has at least two pieces of independent external evidence — not employer-issued, not self-nominated, not paid-placement
• No evidence falls into paid media (Forbes Council, CEO Weekly, TechTimes, Globee/Stevie awards)
• The three strongest criteria have been selected; weaker criteria are not included just to increase count
• Citation evidence (Criterion 6) includes citations by authors with no co-authorship or employment relationship to the beneficiary

Expert letter audit:

• Minimum 5 letters, target 6–7
• All letter writers are independently verifiable as recognized in the field
• No two letters share identical language or structure
• Each letter makes at least one specific, verifiable claim about unique impact
• No letter is from a current or former employer without at least two fully independent letters to offset

Step 2 argument audit:

• The cover letter or petition brief includes a dedicated Step 2 section arguing totality
• Step 2 section references specific evidence, not just criteria
• Field is defined narrowly enough that "top of the field" is a supportable claim
• The narrative addresses sustainability of acclaim, not a single peak achievement

Administrative:

• I-907 filed if timing is critical — note that RFEs exit the premium timeframe
• Response strategy for the most likely RFE grounds has been prepared before filing
• Client has been briefed that current Q4 approval rate is 53%, not the full-year 66.9%

When to File vs. When to Strengthen

Timing has limited impact on the substantive adjudication standard. A well-prepared petition is approved regardless of quarter. A poorly prepared petition is denied regardless of quarter. However, two timing considerations are worth noting.

Premium processing timing. Filing with I-907 guarantees initial action in 15 business days. But if an RFE is issued within that window, the premium timeframe is tolled. For petitions where the evidence is strong, premium processing accelerates approval. For petitions where an RFE is likely, premium processing accelerates the RFE — which may be useful (faster information on what USCIS needs) or costly (if the RFE reveals a gap that requires significant additional evidence gathering).

Strengthen first or file and respond. In prior years, a common strategy was to file with available evidence and address gaps in the RFE response. In a 53% approval environment, this approach carries more risk. An officer who issues an RFE in Q4 FY2025 is operating against a more demanding standard than one who issued an RFE in Q1. The stronger-first strategy — building the complete evidentiary record before filing — is more appropriate in the current climate than it was twelve months ago.

The data from FY2025 is clear: the environment has changed. The petitions that succeed are the ones built to meet the current standard, not the standard from two years ago. For the full FY2025 data underlying this analysis, see the USCIS EB-1A FY2025 data article.

---

Immigration Copilot automates EB-1A petition drafting against verified exhibit evidence. Start a free trial at /sign-up — no credit card required.