The Real Truth Behind the Declining EB-1A Approval Rate in FY 2026

Get an AI summary: Perplexity ChatGPT Claude Gemini

A number has been making the rounds on all newsfeeds for weeks: 47.5%, which is the EB-1A approval rate USCIS posted for Q1 FY2026. And it is certainly being considered the lowest in the history of this data series. Moreover, the number itself has understandably rattled a lot of people mid-way through their green card journey.

The number is verified. It checks out against primary USCIS data and independent attorney reporting. But a viral statistic and an accurate understanding of what exactly is happening are two very different things. Before you give up on EB-1A seeing this number, you need to read this breakdown of what exactly is happening with EB-1A approval at a microscopic level.

This article walks through what the data actually shows, and why the single most important variable in your outcome was never the national average to begin with. After reading through our analysis, you will be convinced that there is no average Joe in the EB-1A case, and every case is specific. If you create a solid profile, your approval chance also remains solid.

The numbers in full context

Let’s take a cursory overview of the EB-1A approval rate over time:

Notice something important: the full-year FY2025 figure of 66.9% quietly masks a collapse that happened almost entirely in the back half of the year. Anyone reading only the annual number would miss that the rate nearly halved between Q1 FY2025 and Q1 FY2026.

For comparison, EB-2 NIW has actually fallen faster, from 55.2% for FY2025 down to 42.6% in Q1 FY2026. Meanwhile, O-1 approval rates have held remarkably steady above 90% throughout the same period. And employer-sponsored EB-1B and EB-1C categories have stayed above 96% approval the entire time.

Hence, you need to take into account that last detail in the real headline hiding inside the viral post: actually, this is not an "extraordinary ability got harder to prove" story. On the contrary, the main issue revolves around whether the merit-based category is self-petitioned or employer-sponsored. The categories where an officer has to independently judge a person's standing, instead of relying on an employer's sponsorship, are the ones seeing the scrutiny and the decline in the approval rate.

What is actually driving the decline

The scrutiny is concentrated in one specific step

USCIS evaluates EB-1A petitions using the two-step Kazarian framework. Step one is mechanical: does the petitioner meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria? Step two, or the "final merits determination," is a holistic, discretionary judgment of whether the person is genuinely among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field.

Our EB-1A Attorney friends across multiple firms report the same pattern: the decline is happening almost entirely at that second, subjective step. In other words, applicants are still meeting the technical requirements. They are losing at the point where an officer forms a holistic impression of the case.

USCIS is buried in its own backlog

The filing surge is arguably the more direct (and less dissected) reason behind the sharp decline in approval:

EB-1A filings rose roughly 50% year-over-year in FY2025.
USCIS received 29,582 new EB-1A petitions in FY2025 but only completed 18,633; in other words, adding roughly 11,000 cases to the backlog in a single year.
The pending caseload grew 56% across FY2025, from 13,526 to 21,157 cases.
Q4 completions actually fell 17% quarter-over-quarter, even as filing volume held steady.

A system drowning in volume tends to default toward faster and more conservative decisions. The recent decline in the approval rate certainly reflects an agency under strain.

A January 2026 court ruling nobody's talking about enough

On January 28, 2026, a federal district court in Nebraska issued a ruling in Mukherji v. Miller that deserves far more attention than it has gotten. The court found that USCIS's entire two-step "final merits" framework (the exact mechanism behind the falling approval numbers) was never lawfully adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act, because USCIS built it through internal policy memos instead of public notice-and-comment rulemaking.

The petitioner, journalist Anahita Mukherji, had met five of the ten EB-1A criteria (nearly double the required minimum) but was denied at the final merits stage because USCIS deemed her achievements "too old" and insufficiently "sustained." The court rejected that reasoning outright and called it arbitrary and without statutory basis. The judge also took the unusual step of ordering USCIS to approve the petition outright instead of simply remanding it for reconsideration. USCIS has since withdrawn its appeal.

An important caveat, and one that any credible source should give you: Mukherji is persuasive authority from a single federal district court. It is not a nationwide rule, and USCIS's Policy Manual guidance hasn't formally changed. However, what it does mean is that applicants who were denied on "recency" or "sustained acclaim" grounds may now have legitimate new grounds to challenge that denial. Hence, a denial at the final determination does not have to be the end of your EB-1A story.

Here is the part the statistics can't tell you

A national approval percentage is an average of thousands of cases with wildly different quality, strategy, and evidence. It tells you nothing about your case specifically. Two applicants in the same field, filing in the same quarter, can have outcomes as different as night and day. Attorneys and consultants who work inside these cases every quarter report a consistent pattern in what separates approvals from denials right now, regardless of which way the national average is trending:

Independent, third-party evidence over insider praise. Officers are heavily discounting recommendation letters from personal acquaintances or professional dependents, in favor of unaffiliated experts with no direct tie to the applicant.
A deliberately constructed final-merits narrative. A cohesive "why this person, why now, why it matters" story should organically accompany your array of evidence.
Selective criteria, not maximal criteria. Attorneys increasingly report that three to four criteria, backed by deep, verifiable documentation, now outperform six or more criteria, backed by thin evidence. Weak claims simply give an officer more surface area to challenge.
Genuine and verified documentation. USCIS is cross-referencing citations and award authenticity with modern tools in 2026, which makes templated letters and predatory-journal publications a materially bigger risk than they were even two years ago.

None of these five factors show up in a quarterly USCIS approval-rate table. All five are things that can be refined and strengthened months before a petition is ever filed. This is precisely why the applicants who treat their EB-1A case as a long-term organic profile-building process are the ones consistently landing on the right side of that "final merits" judgment stage.

Why guidance matters more than the national average

If there is one thing this data should change how you think about your own case, it is this: the statistical approval rate is not your approval rate. It is a blended average of strong cases, weak cases, rushed cases, and everything in between.

The applicants who are still getting approved in this tighter environment share one thing in common that has nothing to do with luck or timing: they built their profile methodically, with experienced eyes reviewing every piece of evidence long before filing. This is exactly where experienced EB-1A experts can prove to be the most indispensable ally. In an environment where the discretionary final-merits step is causing almost all the damage, a rushed or generic petition should be avoided at all costs.

Frequently asked questions

Is the 47.5% EB-1A approval rate for Q1 FY2026 accurate?

Yes. It is confirmed by USCIS data and corroborated by multiple independent attorneys and immigration law sources that track quarterly approval statistics.

Does a falling approval rate mean my case is less likely to be approved?

Not necessarily. National approval rates reflect an average across thousands of cases of varying quality. A well-documented, strategically built petition faces very different odds than a rushed or generic one, regardless of the quarterly average.

What does the Mukherji v. Miller ruling mean for me?

If you were previously denied on "recency" or "insufficient sustained acclaim" grounds, the ruling may give you legitimate new grounds to challenge that denial. It is not, however, a guarantee of approval, and it applies as persuasive authority from a single district court rather than as binding nationwide policy.

Is EB-2 NIW a safer option right now than EB-1A?

Not based on current data. EB-2 NIW approval rates have fallen faster than EB-1A's over the same period, which challenges the common assumption that NIW is the more forgiving self-petition route.

Why have EB-1B and EB-1C approval rates stayed so high?

Both categories are employer-sponsored, which removes much of the officer discretion involved in judging an individual's standing. The current decline is concentrated in self-petitioned categories like EB-1A and EB-2 NIW, where that discretionary judgment plays the largest role.

What matters most in getting an EB-1A petition approved in 2026?

Independent, verifiable evidence; quantified rather than asserted impact; a cohesive final-merits narrative; and a small number of criteria backed by strong documentation, rather than many criteria backed by thin evidence. Building these elements methodically, under experienced guidance, matters far more than any single quarterly statistic.