.png)
Seek more insights? Subscribe to our Monthly Newsletter
The EB-1 approval rate is one of the most searched statistics in US immigration — and one of the most frequently misunderstood. The headline figure that circulates most widely is typically around 85% to 90% — and while that number appears in USCIS published data, it does not mean what most applicants think it means. Understanding what the data actually shows, what it excludes, and what it tells you about your specific petition's prospects is essential before deciding whether and when to file.
This article analyses the latest available USCIS data on EB-1A approval rates, RFE rates, sub-category comparisons, and profession-specific patterns — and translates that data into practical guidance for applicants building their petition strategy in 2026. All data is drawn from official USCIS published statistics and form data available at uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/immigration-forms-data.
How USCIS Publishes Approval Data
USCIS publishes I-140 petition data annually through its Immigration Forms Data reports. These reports show the number of I-140 petitions received, approved, and denied by preference category and fiscal year. The data is published with a lag; the most recently available complete dataset as of mid-2026 covers fiscal year 2024 (October 2023 through September 2024).
The EB-1 category data covers all three sub-categories — EB-1A (extraordinary ability), EB-1B (outstanding professors and researchers), and EB-1C (multinational managers and executives) combined in the headline figures, and in some years disaggregated by sub-category. The data covers all I-140 petitions processed in that fiscal year, including initial petitions, amended petitions, and petitions filed on behalf of individuals who were previously denied and are reapplying.
What the Headline Approval Rate Includes and Excludes
The headline EB-1 approval rate published in USCIS data — approximately 87% to 90% in recent fiscal years reflects all I-140 petitions decided in the relevant period, including extensions, renewals of previously approved petitions, and petitions filed after a prior denial.
This figure is higher than the initial petition approval rate for several reasons. Previously approved petitions that are being renewed or extended for the same beneficiary have a much higher approval rate than initial petitions, because the underlying extraordinary ability or outstanding professor/multinational executive classification has already been established. Reapplied petitions with strengthened evidence also contribute to the approved count without appearing in the initial petition denominator.
Why the Initial Petition Rate Matters More Than the Overall Rate
For an applicant considering their first EB-1A petition, the relevant figure is not the headline 87% to 90% but the initial petition approval rate — the proportion of first-time I-140 petitions that are approved. USCIS does not publish this figure separately in most data releases, but practitioners consistently report initial EB-1A petition approval rates in the range of 60% to 75% for the broad population of all filers with significantly higher rates (85% to 95%) for well-prepared petitions filed by qualified applicants, and significantly lower rates (40% or below) for petitions filed without professional support by applicants whose profiles are borderline.
The practical implication: the data does not tell you how likely your petition is to be approved. It tells you how often petitions submitted by the full population of filers — ranging from clearly qualified to clearly unqualified — are approved. Your petition's prospects depend on the quality of your specific profile and evidence, not on the population average.
(Source: USCIS Immigration Forms Data, I-140 petition data, fiscal year 2024; USCIS Data and Statistics)
EB-1A vs EB-1B vs EB-1C Approval Rates Compared
USCIS data, where disaggregated, shows consistent patterns across the three EB-1 sub-categories.
EB-1C (Multinational Managers and Executives) has historically had the highest approval rate of the three sub-categories — typically in the 90% to 95% range. This reflects the more structured and objectively verifiable nature of the eligibility criteria: the applicant held a managerial or executive role at a qualifying organisation for at least one year and is being transferred to a US affiliate or subsidiary in a managerial or executive capacity. While the petition requires thorough documentation, the standard does not involve the subjective expert judgment that EB-1A requires, and the employer-petitioned structure means the employer's legal counsel typically prepares well-documented submissions.
EB-1B (Outstanding Professors and Researchers) has approval rates in the 80% to 88% range in recent years. The standard — international recognition as outstanding in a specific academic field, with a qualifying job offer — is somewhat more objective than EB-1A (it requires evidence satisfying two of six published criteria, rather than three of ten plus a final merits determination) but still involves expert assessment. Employer petitions from well-resourced universities and research institutions tend to be well-prepared, contributing to a relatively high approval rate.
EB-1A (Extraordinary Ability) has the lowest initial petition approval rate of the three sub-categories when initial petitions are considered separately from the overall approved figure — reflecting the highest evidentiary bar (three of ten criteria plus the Kazarian two-step final merits determination) and the broadest population of self-petitioners, including many who file without professional support or before their evidence meets the required standard.
The headline overall EB-1 approval rate is weighted heavily by EB-1C volume, which represents a large proportion of total EB-1 petitions and has the highest approval rate — this is one reason why the headline figure overstates the initial EB-1A petition approval rate.
RFE Rates Across EB-1 Sub-Categories
USCIS does not publish RFE rates separately from approval/denial data. However, practitioner data and USCIS quarterly reports consistently indicate that RFE rates for EB-1A initial petitions are in the 25% to 40% range — meaning between one in four and two in five initial EB-1A petitions receive a Request for Evidence before a final decision is issued.
An RFE is not a denial — it is USCIS requesting additional evidence on one or more aspects of the petition. Many petitions that receive RFEs are ultimately approved after a well-prepared response. However, RFEs add two to six months to the total timeline, increase the cost of the petition (RFE responses typically add $1,500 to $4,000 in attorney fees), and signal that the original petition had evidential gaps.
For EB-1B and EB-1C, RFE rates are lower — approximately 15% to 25% for EB-1B and 10% to 20% for EB-1C — reflecting the more structured and objectively verifiable eligibility criteria in those sub-categories.
What RFE Patterns Tell Us About Common Weaknesses
The criteria most commonly cited in EB-1A RFEs, based on practitioner data and published AAO decisions, are: the original contributions of major significance criterion (Criterion 5), where petitions frequently assert significance without independent corroboration; the judging criterion (Criterion 4), where petitions claim peer review without demonstrating that the reviewer was specifically selected for their expertise; and the published material criterion (Criterion 3), where coverage of the petitioner's organisation is presented as coverage of the petitioner individually.
The most common basis for final merits denial, the second step of the Kazarian framework, is a collection of criteria evidence that is individually thin and, taken together, does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field. Petitions that satisfy three criteria on marginal evidence, without a cover letter that makes an explicit final merits argument, are particularly vulnerable to denial at this stage.
Approval Rates by Field and Profession
USCIS does not publish EB-1A approval rates disaggregated by field or profession. The following patterns are drawn from practitioner data, AAO-published decisions, and immigration research.
STEM researchers and academics have historically had approval rates at the higher end of the EB-1A range when the evidence package is built around peer-reviewed publications, citation data, and academic awards. The citation metric provides a relatively objective measure of peer recognition that USCIS adjudicators can assess without specialist expertise, and the scholarly article criterion and original contributions criterion are well-suited to this profile. The challenge for academic profiles is typically the final merits determination — establishing that the petitioner is among the top of the field, not simply a productive researcher.
Software engineers and technology professionals face a more variable picture. Profiles with strong open-source adoption, significant press coverage, and conference speaking records at recognised events are approved at high rates. Profiles that rely primarily on employment at large technology companies without independent external recognition — strong titles but limited sector-wide standing — have lower approval rates and higher RFE rates, particularly on the mandatory criterion and the original contributions criterion.
Founders and entrepreneurs have benefited significantly from the 2016 Dhanasar decision's explicit recognition that entrepreneurs can qualify for the NIW — and its implicit signal that entrepreneurial achievement can support extraordinary ability claims. EB-1A petitions for founders typically need to establish both the founder's individual standing (press coverage, awards, advisory roles) and the company's independently verifiable standing (recognised investors, documented traction, sector recognition). Petitions that document only the company's success without the founder's individual recognition frequently face RFEs or denials on the mandatory criterion.
Artists, performers, and creative professionals have approval rates that depend heavily on the specific discipline and the quality of the evidence package. Artists with exhibition records at venues of documented standing, performers with credits at major institutions, and creative directors with critical recognition in respected publications are approved at high rates. Creative professionals whose recognition is primarily self-generated or promotional without independent critical or institutional corroboration face higher denial rates.
Physicians and healthcare professionals filing EB-1A petitions face a nuanced picture. Clinicians whose recognition is primarily within their healthcare system — internal awards, internal committee roles without external peer recognition face challenges on the mandatory criterion. Clinicians who have combined clinical practice with published research, academic appointments, and peer recognition fare significantly better. For many physicians, the EB-2 NIW is a more appropriate route than EB-1A, particularly where the physician is practising or planning to practise in a shortage area.
The Evidence Quality Gap
The single most consistent differentiator between approved and refused EB-1A petitions is the quality and independence of the evidence. Approved petitions share the following characteristics: specific evidence, not general — every claim is supported by a named, dateable, independently produced document; external evidence, not internal — the primary evidence comes from sources outside the petitioner's employer or immediate professional circle; and evidence that is criterion-specific, every document in the exhibits is clearly relevant to a specific criterion and is introduced in the cover letter in the context of that criterion.
Refused petitions consistently show the opposite pattern: general assertions of excellence unsupported by specific evidence; evidence that is primarily internal — employer letters, performance reviews, internal awards; and evidence that is presented as a general professional history rather than a criterion-specific legal argument.
The Final Merits Argument Gap
The second most consistent differentiator is the presence or absence of an explicit final merits argument in the cover letter. Approved petitions address the final merits determination as a distinct, named section of the cover letter — explicitly arguing that the totality of the evidence establishes sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Refused petitions at the final merits stage are consistently characterised by cover letters that describe the petitioner's career without making this argument explicitly. USCIS adjudicators do not construct the final merits argument for the petitioner — they assess whether the petitioner has made it. A petition that assumes the adjudicator will draw favourable inferences from a list of achievements is in a weaker position than one that states the inference directly.
How Tech Nomads Improves Approval Rates
Tech Nomads works with EB-1A petitioners to address both the evidence quality gap and the final merits argument gap before the petition is filed. The process begins with a criterion-by-criterion assessment of the existing evidence — identifying which criteria are strongly supported, which are weak, and what additional evidence should be gathered before filing. The cover letter is drafted as a legal argument, with a dedicated final merits section that explicitly addresses the Kazarian standard. Expert letters are briefed to address the specific legal questions the final merits determination requires.
The practical effect of this preparation is petitions that are filed when they are genuinely ready with evidence that is strong, independent, and criterion-specific rather than petitions that are filed prematurely and generate avoidable RFEs.
USCIS EB-1A initial petition approval rates have fluctuated over time in response to changes in adjudication policy, increases in filing volume, and shifts in the population of applicants.
The Kazarian era (2010 onwards): The Ninth Circuit's 2010 decision in Kazarian v. USCIS established the two-step framework that now governs all EB-1A adjudications. Its introduction shifted the locus of refusals from the criteria threshold (Step 1) to the final merits determination (Step 2), which was initially less well-understood by practitioners and petitioners. The transition period saw elevated denial rates for petitions that satisfied the criteria threshold on thin evidence but failed the final merits determination — a pattern that has persisted.
Post-2017 period: The period from 2017 to 2021 saw significant increases in RFE rates across employment-based categories as USCIS policy shifted towards more rigorous adjudication. EB-1A RFE rates increased noticeably during this period, reflecting both elevated adjudication scrutiny and an increase in petitions filed by applicants who had not previously considered the route.
Post-2021 normalisation: From 2021 onwards, EB-1A processing has broadly normalised, with RFE rates returning to more historical levels. The increase in premium processing usage has improved timeline predictability without materially affecting approval rates — premium processing speeds the initial decision but does not change the substantive standard applied.
2026 trends: As of early 2026, there is no evidence of a material shift in EB-1A adjudication standards or approval rates from the post-normalisation baseline. The most significant current variable affecting EB-1 applicants is the priority date situation for Indian nationals — an administrative backlog issue rather than an adjudication quality issue.
Filing When Ready vs Filing to Establish Priority Date
A commonly debated strategic question is whether to file an I-140 petition with the strongest possible evidence or to file sooner with somewhat weaker evidence — to establish an earlier priority date. This question is most relevant for Indian nationals, where the priority date backlog means that an earlier filing date translates directly into earlier green card availability.
For most nationalities, where priority dates are current, there is no advantage to filing early with weaker evidence. The appropriate strategy is to file when the evidence is genuinely ready. For Indian nationals, the priority date calculus is more nuanced; an I-140 that is filed and approved establishes a priority date regardless of whether it receives an RFE, and the earlier the date, the more favourable the position in the backlog. However, a denied I-140 does not preserve any priority date. The strategic balance is to file when the evidence is strong enough to be approved even if not at its strongest possible state — rather than either filing prematurely or waiting for perfect evidence.
Premium Processing and Approval Rates
Premium processing does not improve approval rates — it speeds the initial decision. A petition that would receive an RFE under standard processing will also receive an RFE under premium processing, just three weeks faster rather than four to six months later. The appropriate reason to use premium processing is timeline management — certainty of outcome, accommodation of employment transition dates, or the desire for an early I-140 approval before filing a concurrent I-485.
The Reapplication Rate After Refusal
USCIS does not publish reapplication data specifically. However, the proportion of EB-1A approved petitions that follow a prior denial is a meaningful figure, it indicates that refusal is not the end of the road. Many petitions that are initially refused are subsequently approved after the applicant addresses the grounds of refusal with additional evidence. The key conditions for a successful reapplication are: a specific, written grounds-of-refusal review; material improvement of the evidence on the identified weak points; and, often, a restructured cover letter with a stronger final merits argument.
A reapplication that simply adds a few exhibits to an unchanged petition is unlikely to succeed. A reapplication that specifically addresses each ground of refusal with new, targeted evidence and that rebuilds the cover letter argument to respond directly to the adjudicator's concerns has a meaningful success rate.
Tech Nomads is a global mobility platform that provides services for international relocation. Established in 2018, Tech Nomads has a track record of successfully relocating talents and teams. Our expertise in adapting to regulatory changes ensures our clients’ satisfaction and success.
Tech Nomads Club
Tech Nomads Club is a curated global community for highly skilled professionals.
We host free, application-based events, including expert panel talks, start-up pitch days, members-only networking, informal meetups, and fireside conversations with industry leaders.
Membership is free but selective — open to those building across borders and seeking meaningful growth through connection, knowledge, and community.
We also produce a regular podcast that shares real stories, insights, and voices from inside the Club.
Book a Consultation
Ready to find out whether the EB-1 Visa is the right route for your profile — and how it fits into your longer-term US immigration strategy?
The Tech Nomads team offers personalised consultations for tech professionals, researchers, and founders at every stage of the process. In a single session, you will receive a clear, specific assessment of your profile against the EB-1 criteria, honest advice on whether you are ready to file or what needs to be strengthened first, and a view of how the EB-1 connects to your green card pathway.
To explore your USA relocation options, you may:
Subscribe to our social media platforms to stay up-to-date on global mobility news and opportunities:
Useful Resources:
Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information.
© Copyright 2024, All Rights Reserved
.png)
.png)
.avif)
.png)
