EB-1A Approval Rate: What the 2025-2026 Data Actually Tells You
EB-1A Approval Rate: What the 2025-2026 Data Actually Tells You
The EB-1A approval rate is simultaneously the most discussed and most misunderstood statistic in employment-based immigration. People want a simple number: "What are my odds?" The honest answer is that the macro approval rate tells you surprisingly little about your specific case — but what the data does reveal about why petitions are failing is far more useful than the headline percentage.
The Numbers in Context
The overall EB-1 category approval rate for fiscal year 2025 was approximately 81.2%, with 28,550 approvals out of 35,160 adjudicated petitions.
Breaking that down by subcategory reveals a completely different picture:
| Category | FY 2025 Full Year | Q4 2025 (Jul–Sep) |
|---|---|---|
| Overall EB-1 | ~81.2% | ~73.9% |
| EB-1A (Extraordinary Ability) | ~66.9% | ~53.4% |
| EB-1B (Outstanding Professor) | ~97.8% | ~97.5% |
| EB-1C (Multinational Manager) | ~97.1% | ~96.5% |
The EB-1A numbers are the ones that matter for self-petitioners. The EB-1B and EB-1C rates look reassuring, but those categories have employer sponsorship and more objective evidentiary requirements. The EB-1A — the self-petition pathway for extraordinary ability — had nearly half of all Q4 2025 petitions denied.
That's not a rounding error. In Q4 2025, USCIS adjudicated approximately 4,364 EB-1A petitions and denied 2,033 of them.
Why the Rate Dropped in Q4 2025
The Q4 2025 decline from 66.9% (full-year average) to 53.4% reflects a tightening at the Kazarian Step 2 — the Final Merits Determination. This is the stage where the adjudicating officer holistically evaluates whether the petitioner has truly demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and stands among the small percentage at the top of their field.
The pattern emerging from AAO decisions and RFE data shows adjudicators increasingly rejecting petitions that:
- Satisfy three criteria mechanically but present evidence of shallow, temporary, or narrow recognition
- Rely heavily on dependent letters (from supervisors and colleagues) without sufficient independent external validation
- Submit citation counts or media mentions without framing the comparative context — what does "1,200 citations" mean in your specific field?
- Present "original contributions" without third-party documentation of real-world adoption or industry-level impact
The trend is not that USCIS is changing the rules. It's that adjudicators are more aggressively applying the existing Step 2 standard rather than approving petitions that technically meet three criteria but fall short of genuine sustained acclaim.
What the Approval Rate Doesn't Tell You
The macro rate includes all self-petitions filed — including ones submitted by applicants who, frankly, should not have filed. People who were told by a consultant that they "probably qualify" and submitted thin evidence, people who satisfied criteria on paper but couldn't survive a holistic review, and people who filed prematurely to establish a priority date before their evidence was ready.
The approval rate for petitions filed through specialized extraordinary ability firms with selective intake policies looks dramatically different. WeGreened, for example, has historically published EB-1A approval rates above 90% for petitions they've accepted and filed. The discrepancy between their rate and the USCIS macro rate reflects the difference between selective, well-prepared petitions and the overall pool.
This tells you something actionable: the data suggests that petition quality — not the category itself — is the primary driver of outcomes. The adjudication environment is tougher, but well-constructed petitions with strong independent evidence continue to approve at high rates.
Free Download
Get the US EB-1 Extraordinary Ability Green Card Guide — Quick-Start Checklist
Everything in this article as a printable checklist — plus action plans and reference guides you can start using today.
The Specific Failure Patterns Driving Denials
The "three criteria, weak merits" problem. A petition can satisfy the threshold count of three criteria — maybe the petitioner really did get published, really did do peer review, and really does earn a high salary — but if none of those elements is particularly exceptional by field standards, Step 2 will fail. Meeting the criteria is the floor, not the ceiling.
Dependent letters dominating the expert evidence. Letters from your direct manager, your PhD advisor, and your former collaborators are what USCIS calls "dependent" letters. They have evidentiary value but inherent bias. When a petition is built primarily on dependent letters, adjudicators are skeptical at Step 2. What carries weight is independent letters from recognized experts who have no personal relationship with you but who have been influenced by your work — someone who cited your research, adopted your framework, or implemented your technology.
Original contributions without adoption evidence. For the "original contributions of major significance" criterion, many petitioners submit a list of their innovations and a few supporting letters saying "this is significant work." What the Step 2 analysis actually requires is evidence that the broader field has recognized and built upon those contributions — enterprise implementations, downstream citations by independent researchers, open-source adoption statistics, license revenue from patented technology.
Media coverage that doesn't hold up. An article that briefly mentions you in a list of company employees, a press release that was picked up by three websites, a blog post by your company's PR department — none of these survive Step 2 scrutiny. The "published material about the alien" criterion requires full-length, substantive profiles in independently recognized major media.
The Mukherji Decision and What It Means for 2026
In January 2026, the US District Court for the District of Nebraska ruled in Mukherji v. Miller that USCIS's application of the Kazarian two-step framework was procedurally invalid — that the Final Merits Determination, as applied by the agency without formal notice-and-comment rulemaking, violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The court ordered approval of the petitioner's case, which had satisfied five criteria but was denied at Step 2.
The immediate impact is geographically limited: this is a single district court ruling, not binding nationwide precedent. USCIS continues to apply the Kazarian framework across service centers.
What it does provide is a legal tool. An EB-1A petition denied at Step 2 — particularly one that satisfied four or five criteria — now has a credible argument for AAO appeal or federal litigation challenging the arbitrary application of the Final Merits standard. This doesn't change the calculus for most applicants, but for borderline cases with strong criteria satisfaction and a questionable Step 2 denial, Mukherji opens a door that didn't exist before.
How to Read Your Own Odds
The macro approval rate doesn't predict your individual outcome. What does:
How many criteria do you satisfy, and how strongly? Four strong criteria is a substantially different position than three marginal ones.
What does your independent evidence look like? If you removed every letter from someone who has worked with you, how much of your case remains? That's your Step 2 strength.
Can you contextualize your achievements comparatively? A 500-citation count means almost nothing without knowing what the median researcher in your specific field with your level of experience looks like. Evidence that places your metrics in the top tier of your field is what survives Step 2.
Is your case being filed through a firm that accepts borderline cases or one that screens carefully? The latter will tell you honestly if you're not ready.
The US EB-1 Extraordinary Ability Green Card Guide includes a self-assessment framework for mapping your evidence against each criterion and doing an honest Step 2 audit before you invest thousands in legal fees. The goal is to know whether you have a winnable case before you file — not after you receive a denial.
The Bottom Line on Approval Rates
The 53.4% Q4 2025 approval rate is genuinely concerning for anyone planning to self-petition. It means that nearly half of all recent EB-1A applicants are being denied — and that the cost of a poorly prepared petition is not just lost filing fees but potentially years of immigration uncertainty.
The appropriate response to this data is not to give up on the EB-1A. It's to take the evidentiary standard seriously — particularly the Step 2 standard that most publicly available resources still don't explain clearly — and to build a case that can survive a skeptical holistic review, not just count three qualifying criteria.
The petitions that are getting approved have something in common: independent, external validation of genuine impact, at scale, in their specific field. That's the bar. Everything else is preparation to meet it.
Get Your Free US EB-1 Extraordinary Ability Green Card Guide — Quick-Start Checklist
Download the US EB-1 Extraordinary Ability Green Card Guide — Quick-Start Checklist — a printable guide with checklists, scripts, and action plans you can start using today.