The EB-2 National Interest Waiver and EB-1A Extraordinary Ability categories remain two well-established paths to a green card. They allow professionals to bypass the labor certification process and, in the case of EB-1A, to self-petition without a job offer. That has not changed.
What has changed is the level of preparation these cases now require. USCIS Form I-140 adjudication data through the fourth quarter of FY2025 indicates that adjudicators are scrutinizing these petitions more closely than in prior years. For petitioners, the data is clarifying rather than discouraging: strong, well-documented cases continue to be approved at high rates. The data confirms that how a case is framed and documented has a meaningful effect on outcomes.
What the Numbers Show
Approval rates in the NIW category have declined from their pandemic-era peak. USCIS approved roughly 96% of NIW petitions in FY2022, a figure inflated in part by a much smaller pool of filings. As the category grew in popularity, the approval rate moved to approximately 80% in FY2023, roughly 71% in FY2024, and 55.2% for full FY2025, with a lower fourth quarter as the agency worked through a record backlog of filings. See USCIS Immigration and Citizenship Data.
| EB-2 NIW Approval Rate | By Fiscal Year |
| FY2022 | ~96% |
| FY2023 | ~80% |
| FY2024 | ~71% |
| FY2025 (full year) | 55.2% |
| FY2025 Q4 | 35.7% |
EB-1A approval rates have remained comparatively stable. After several years in a 70–75% range, the category finished FY2025 at 66.9%, meaning approximately two of every three petitions were approved. The O-1 nonimmigrant extraordinary ability classification remained above 90% throughout FY2025.
| Category (FY2025) | Approval Rate | Q4 FY2025 |
| EB-2 NIW (immigrant) | 55.2% | 35.7% |
| EB-1A (immigrant) | 66.9% | ~53% |
| O-1 (nonimmigrant) | >90% | >90% |
What Is Driving the Trend
In NIW cases, USCIS is applying the Matter of Dhanasar framework with greater rigor, placing weight on measurable, demonstrated U.S. impact rather than forward-looking potential or broad sector-wide claims. Healthcare, core STEM, and national-security-adjacent fields continue to fare well, and well-framed cases in other fields are approved regularly. Contributions that demonstrably extend beyond a single employer, supported by concrete evidence, are better positioned under current adjudication practice.
In EB-1A cases, adjudicators continue to apply the two-step “final merits” analysis, treating the three-criteria threshold as a starting point rather than a conclusion. That approach is now being tested in litigation. In Mukherji v. Miller (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026), a federal district court questioned whether USCIS properly adopted the two-step framework and ordered a petition approved after the agency conceded the petitioner met five of the 10 criteria. The decision is limited to that case and USCIS has not changed its guidance, but it represents a notable development and may provide an additional argument where a strong record has been denied on vague or conclusory reasoning.
The shift in approval rates does not reflect the exclusion of borderline filings. It signals that the quality and specificity of the petition (the framing of the endeavor, the independence of the evidence, the clarity of the U.S. benefit) are factors in adjudication outcomes.
What It Means for Petitioners
For an NIW, the proposed endeavor should be framed narrowly and tied concretely to a specific, demonstrated U.S. benefit rather than a broad field or job title and paired with evidence that the petitioner’s work has already produced impact beyond a single employer. That includes adoption or citation of the work by others, deployment at scale, measurable outcomes, government or industry uptake, and independent letters from qualified individuals that address specific contributions rather than offering general praise.
For an EB-1A, each claimed criterion should be corroborated with objective, third-party evidence. The record should articulate a consistent narrative of sustained national or international acclaim, rather than relying on meeting the three-criterion threshold alone. In both categories, independent corroboration, verifiable metrics, and a clearly articulated U.S. benefit are factors that distinguish approved petitions.
A few practical points for those weighing their options:
Individuals who may qualify for both EB-1A and NIW should consider filing both petitions concurrently. This approach creates multiple opportunities for approval and preserves flexibility as cases progress. If both are approved, the beneficiary can pursue permanent residence through whichever category offers more favorable visa availability and processing timelines. This can be particularly relevant for individuals born in countries subject to immigrant visa backlogs, where movement in the Visa Bulletin may differ between the EB-1 and EB-2 categories.
Filing both petitions also allows applicants to secure a priority date as early as possible while accounting for uncertainty in either adjudication. Where a candidate is employer-sponsored and the national interest or extraordinary ability case is substantial but not conclusive, a PERM-based EB-2 or EB-3 case may serve as a parallel or alternative path — typically slower, but a reliable route for the right candidate profile.
For self-petitioners whose work does not fit a standard job description, the NIW and EB-1A categories remain available but often the most appropriate fit. In those situations, the practical approach is to develop the strongest possible case and, where appropriate, pursue multiple pathways simultaneously.
Conclusion
The EB-2 NIW and EB-1A categories remain viable pathways to permanent residence for highly accomplished individuals. Well-documented cases continue to be approved, and these categories remain relevant for individuals whose work delivers significant value to the United States. Recent data does not foreclose NIW or EB-1A petitions; it reinforces the importance of selecting the appropriate category, presenting a clear and credible record of achievement, and documenting the U.S. benefit with specificity.
