USCIS EB1A Processing Times & Policy Updates — Q1 2026

This is the Q1 2026 edition of our quarterly EB1A policy update. We publish these updates at the start of each quarter with the latest processing data and notable USCIS and AAO developments.

Current Processing Times

As of Q1 2026 (data sourced from USCIS processing times tool):

Premium processing note: Premium processing guarantees a USCIS action within 15 business days — not approval. The action can be an RFE, NOID, denial, or approval. For straightforward petitions, premium is often worth it. For petitions with borderline evidence or complex criteria arguments, additional preparation time before filing may be more valuable than speed.

Processing time variability: USCIS processing times fluctuate significantly with filing volumes. Check the USCIS processing times tool for current data — these figures are accurate as of publication but change frequently.

Notable AAO Decisions (Q4 2025 — Q1 2026)

USCIS Administrative Appeals Office decisions are available at uscis.gov. We highlight decisions with practical implications for EB1A practitioners.

Step 2 Merits Analysis Continues to Be the Critical Battleground

Recent AAO decisions continue to affirm the Kazarian two-step framework — and continue to find petitions deficient at Step 2 even where Step 1 criteria are met. The AAO has been consistent in holding that meeting 3 of 10 criteria is necessary but not sufficient — the totality of evidence must establish that the alien is among the small percentage at the top of their field.

Practical implication: Petitions that simply check three criterion boxes without building a comprehensive Step 2 narrative are at elevated risk. The petition letter must articulate why the combined evidence establishes extraordinary ability in the context of the alien's specific field. See Kazarian Step 2: Writing the Final Merits Argument for the synthesis approach.

Expert Letter Quality Under Scrutiny

Multiple recent decisions note that expert letters providing general praise without specific technical analysis carry reduced weight. The AAO applies the "substantive" expert testimony standard consistently — a letter that says "Dr. X is an outstanding researcher" without explaining specifically what Dr. X contributed and why it matters to the field is not probative.

Practical implication: Brief expert letters more specifically. Each letter should address: what the alien specifically contributed, what the field looked like before, and how the field changed because of the contribution. See the expert letters complete guide for briefing package templates.

Salary Comparison Data Source Matters

One recent denial noted that salary comparison data from a source without documented methodology was insufficient. The adjudicator wanted comparison to "others in the field" using BLS or similar authoritative data, not employer HR assertions or unverified online salary databases.

Practical implication: For Criterion 9, use BLS OES data, DOL FLC data, or published industry salary surveys with documented methodology. See the Criterion 9 guide for recommended sources and comparison table structure.

Policy Considerations

Self-Petitioning Remains Strong for EB1A

EB1A is unique among employment-based immigrant visas in that the alien can self-petition — no employer is required. USCIS has not signaled any policy change to this structure. The regulatory framework under 8 CFR 204.5(h) remains stable.

For attorneys advising clients considering EB1A vs. employer-sponsored EB2-NIW: EB1A's self-petition capability and National Interest Waiver's lower evidentiary standard for significance continue to make both categories attractive for different profiles. EB1A requires extraordinary ability; NIW requires national interest with a slightly lower bar on individual achievement.

RFE Rates for Technology Professionals

Anecdotally, practitioners continue to report elevated RFE rates for technology professionals asserting Criterion 5 (original contributions). USCIS adjudicators have been critical of contributions that are limited to the employer's product rather than demonstrating field-wide impact.

Practical implication: Technology EB1A petitions should document external adoption, open-source contributions, conference presentations, and industry recognition — not just internal product work. Revenue impact at the employer is insufficient alone. See EB1A Criterion 5 for Non-Academic Professionals for field-appropriate evidence strategies.

What Attorneys Should Do This Quarter

1. Review pending cases for Step 2 narrative completeness. If a petition is ready to file but the petition letter focuses heavily on checking criteria without building a Step 2 final merits argument, strengthen it before filing. See the AAO EB1A decisions analysis for what the Step 2 argument needs to address.

2. Audit expert letter quality. If existing expert letters are generic, brief new letters before filing or use current letters as a foundation for RFE responses with more specific analysis. A letter that can't survive the "substantive analysis" standard should be replaced, not supplemented.

3. Verify salary comparison data sources. If Criterion 9 is part of your strategy, ensure comparison data uses BLS or equivalent sources with clear methodology documentation. Unverified online databases are being called out in denials.

4. Check processing time before deciding on premium. If the current regular processing time is under 8 months and the client has status flexibility, regular processing may be appropriate. If the priority date situation requires faster action, premium processing provides certainty — but only file premium when the petition is fully ready.

Data sourced from USCIS.gov, AAO decision database, and practitioner community reports. Processing times as of publication — verify current data at egov.uscis.gov/processing-times.

For AI-powered petition drafting with built-in evidence mapping and quality validation, try Immigration Copilot free →