Articles

A Bright Spot in a Tightening Landscape Why Is EB-1B Still Above 90% While EB-1A Has Fallen to About 32%?

Posted on September 14, 2026 by Warren Wen | Category: English

A Bright Spot in a Tightening Landscape

Why Is EB-1B Still Above 90% While EB-1A Has Fallen to About 32%?

 

Over the past year, one trend in employment-based immigration has become increasingly difficult to ignore:

Cases that once looked reasonably approvable are no longer receiving the same benefit of the doubt.

That has been especially true for EB-1A Extraordinary Ability petitions and EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) cases.

Only a few years ago, many researchers approached EB-1A with a relatively simple calculation:

“I have publications, citations, and peer-review experience. That gives me three criteria. Shouldn’t that be enough?”

NIW applicants often made a similar assumption:

“My work is in artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotechnology, renewable energy, or another field important to the United States. National importance should be straightforward.”

In 2026, both assumptions have become increasingly risky.

Yet amid this broader tightening, one category has remained surprisingly resilient:

EB-1B Outstanding Professor or Researcher.

Its approval rate has continued to remain above 90%.

That deserves a closer look.

The Numbers Tell a Striking Story

USCIS I-140 adjudication data for FY2026 Q2 showed a dramatic difference among the categories.

EB-1A had approximately:

• 1,723 approvals;
• 2,405 denials;
• an approval rate of about 41.7%.

EB-1B, by comparison, had approximately:

• 1,546 approvals;
• 103 denials;
• an approval rate of about 93.8%.

NIW stood at approximately 48.1%.

The divergence became even more pronounced in FY2026 Q3.

According to the data summarized in the finalized article, EB-1A fell further to approximately 32.2%, while EB-1B remained at approximately 93.0%. NIW recovered somewhat, to approximately 55.3%.

Put more simply:

Only about one in three EB-1A petitions was approved, while more than nine out of ten EB-1B petitions were approved.

That is not a small statistical difference.

It reflects two very different adjudication environments.

At the same time, these numbers should not be misunderstood.

A 93% category-wide approval rate does not mean that a particular EB-1B applicant has a 93% chance of success. Quarterly USCIS statistics measure cases adjudicated during that period; they do not follow a single cohort of petitions from filing through decision. EB-1B applicants are also a highly self-selected population.

Still, when one EB-1 category remains above 90% while another falls close to 30%, the obvious question is:

Why?

Everyone Knows EB-1A. Far Fewer People Seriously Consider EB-1B.

Among highly educated foreign nationals, EB-1A is far better known.

The reason is easy to understand.

EB-1A permits self-petitioning.

A scientist, entrepreneur, artist, engineer, athlete, or other highly accomplished professional does not need a permanent U.S. employer to file the I-140.

NIW offers a similar attraction. If the applicant can satisfy the National Interest Waiver framework, the traditional job-offer and PERM labor-certification requirements can be waived.

That flexibility helped create a very large self-petition market.

EB-1B is different.

Its formal name is Outstanding Professor or Researcher.

It is not designed for every highly accomplished professional.

The first question is not simply:

“How impressive are you?”

It is:

Are you actually a professor or researcher who fits the statutory framework?

From there, additional requirements follow.

The applicant generally must have at least three years of qualifying teaching or research experience.

There must be a qualifying U.S. employer willing to file the petition.

For university professors, the position generally must be tenured or tenure-track. For researchers, the position must satisfy the applicable “permanent” employment requirements.

That leads to one of the most important things to understand about EB-1B:

The path may be smoother once you are inside, but the entrance itself is much narrower.

EB-1B requires a qualifying professional role and a qualifying petitioner before the merits of the academic record are even fully evaluated.

Is EB-1B Really Easier Than EB-1A?

Not exactly.

A better way to say it is this:

For someone who genuinely fits EB-1B, the legal standard often matches the person’s real professional career much more naturally than EB-1A does.

EB-1A sets an exceptionally high standard.

An applicant generally must first satisfy at least three of ten regulatory evidentiary criteria.

But meeting three criteria is only the first step.

The harder question comes afterward, in the Final Merits Determination.

USCIS may still ask:

Does the totality of the evidence establish sustained national or international acclaim?

Has this person truly risen to the very top of the field?

This is why many academically strong EB-1A cases have become increasingly difficult.

Consider a relatively young assistant professor with:

• 15 or 20 publications;
• several hundred citations;
• dozens of completed peer reviews;
• conference presentations;
• several meaningful research projects;
• strong recommendation letters.

That person may satisfy three threshold criteria.

But USCIS can still ask:

Aren’t publications, citations, and peer review normal features of a successful academic career?

And that is where the case becomes difficult.

There is a meaningful gap between being an excellent researcher and being among the very small percentage who have reached the top of an entire field.

EB-1B Asks a Different Question

EB-1B does not ask precisely the same thing.

The core inquiry is whether the beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in a specific academic area.

There is substantial overlap between EB-1A and EB-1B, of course.

And EB-1B is not automatic simply because someone has authored articles and reviewed manuscripts.

USCIS still conducts a final merits analysis.

But for a genuine academic, the EB-1B framework often fits the ordinary development of a successful research career much better.

Imagine an assistant professor with:

• meaningful publications;
• several hundred citations;
• substantial peer-review work;
• independent expert recognition;
• participation in federally relevant research;
• and a qualifying tenure-track position.

Under EB-1A, USCIS may still ask:

“Why does this record establish that you are among the very top of the field?”

Under EB-1B, the inquiry is closer to:

“Does this record establish that the academic community internationally recognizes you as an outstanding researcher?”

The wording may appear similar.

In practice, however, the difference can be enormous.

Another Major Difference: EB-1B Does Not Require a “National Importance” Showing

This distinction has become particularly significant in the current NIW environment.

One of the most common points of pressure in NIW adjudications today is national importance.

Many applicants successfully prove that they are good at what they do.

But USCIS increasingly asks a different question:

Why does the applicant’s proposed endeavor matter beyond a single employer, laboratory, customer, or project?

Working in artificial intelligence does not automatically make an endeavor nationally important.

Neither does working in renewable energy, biotechnology, semiconductors, or cybersecurity.

NIW requires a logical chain.

The applicant increasingly must show something like:

What problem does the United States face?
What precisely is the applicant proposing to do?
Why does that endeavor have broader implications beyond one employer?
And why is this applicant positioned to advance it?

EB-1B does not operate under the same Dhanasar framework.

The applicant does not need to establish that a proposed endeavor has national importance or separately prove that waiving the job-offer and labor-certification requirements serves the national interest.

EB-1B already requires employer sponsorship, and PERM is not required for the category.

For professors and researchers, this difference can be decisive:

NIW increasingly asks, “Why will the work you plan to do matter to the United States?”

EB-1B asks, “Has the international academic community already recognized you as an outstanding professor or researcher?”

Those are different legal questions.

They require different evidence strategies.

Why Has EB-1B Remained Above 90%?

There is no basis for saying that USCIS has decided to “favor” EB-1B.

The more likely explanation lies in the architecture of the category itself.

First, EB-1B cannot ordinarily be self-petitioned.

A qualifying U.S. university or research organization must be willing to sponsor the case.

Second, the beneficiary must fit a limited professional population.

The applicant needs the required teaching or research experience and a qualifying long-term academic or research position.

Third, universities and research institutions generally do not initiate EB-1B petitions indiscriminately.

The result is an important built-in filtering mechanism.

The EB-1A and NIW filing populations can include applicants ranging from exceptionally strong to highly speculative.

EB-1B cases, by contrast, are often screened before they ever reach USCIS.

That suggests an important distinction:

A high approval rate does not necessarily mean USCIS is lenient toward EB-1B. It may instead mean that the people who qualify to enter the EB-1B process have already passed several substantial filters.

That is also why it would be misleading to advertise EB-1B as a “93% approval category.”

It is not.

The better conclusion is that the category has remained remarkably stable for applicants who truly fit it.

But the Strategic Value of EB-1B Has Changed

A few years ago, when EB-1A and NIW approval rates were considerably higher, many university professors understandably asked:

“Why involve the university if I can file by myself?”

That reasoning once had considerable appeal.

In the current environment, however, the calculation has changed.

If a professor or researcher already has:

• at least three years of qualifying experience;
• a meaningful record of publications, citations, peer review, and research impact;
• a qualifying academic or research position;
• and an employer willing to sponsor;

then focusing exclusively on EB-1A or NIW may no longer be the most sensible strategy.

It can be the immigration equivalent of standing in the longest line while a more appropriate entrance is available nearby.

This is particularly important for university faculty members and researchers who need a relatively prompt and reliable I-140 strategy.

There is also a practical timing issue.

As discussed in the finalized article, EB-1A and EB-1B I-140 petitions currently qualify for premium processing with a USCIS action period of 15 business days, while NIW premium processing operates on a longer 45-business-day timeframe.

That does not mean approval is guaranteed within 15 days. USCIS may issue an RFE or take another qualifying adjudicative action.

And an approved I-140 does not by itself provide lawful status or employment authorization.

The value of an approved petition still has to be analyzed in connection with the individual’s H-1B status, priority date, adjustment-of-status eligibility, and overall immigration strategy.

But when timing matters, the difference can be significant.

Who Should Take Another Look at EB-1B?

The people who should be paying particular attention today are professors and researchers who already have a stable U.S. academic career.

For example:

• faculty members at U.S. universities;
• researchers at qualifying institutions;
• applicants with meaningful publication and citation records;
• individuals with substantial peer-review activity;
• researchers with independent academic recognition;
• people with at least three years of qualifying experience;
• and, critically, individuals whose employers are willing to sponsor.

EB-1B may be particularly attractive for applicants who find themselves saying:

“I probably have three EB-1A criteria, but I am not completely comfortable with Final Merits.”

Or:

“My NIW case is respectable, but the national-importance argument is not especially strong.”

For those people, EB-1B may be the cleaner legal fit.

But the first questions should not be:

“How many papers do I have?”

or

“How many citations do I have?”

The first questions should be:

Does my position qualify for EB-1B?

And:

Will my institution act as the petitioner?

If the answer to either question is no, the 93% approval rate does not help.

The Bigger Lesson in 2026: Stop Asking Only, “Can I File?”

One of the most persistent problems in employment-based immigration is that applicants often ask the wrong first question.

They ask:

“Can I qualify?”

A better question is:

“Which immigration category most accurately describes where I am professionally today?”

Those are not the same thing.

A single assistant professor may plausibly have three options:

NIW.

EB-1A.

EB-1B.

But each category asks a different question.

NIW focuses heavily on the applicant’s future endeavor and its national importance.

EB-1A asks whether the applicant has achieved sustained acclaim and risen to the very top of the field.

EB-1B asks whether the applicant is internationally recognized as an outstanding professor or researcher and has a qualifying institution willing to continue employing that person in teaching or research.

Being technically eligible to file all three does not mean the three cases carry the same risk.

As adjudications become more demanding, immigration strategy increasingly becomes less about choosing a category that is merely available and more about identifying:

Which legal standard most accurately describes the professional reality the applicant has already built?

A Light in the Dark—But Only for Those Standing in the Right Place

EB-1A has become substantially more difficult.

NIW is no longer the simple “advanced degree plus important industry equals approval” category that some applicants once imagined.

But that does not mean the United States has stopped valuing professors, researchers, and highly skilled professionals.

A more accurate interpretation is that the immigration system is becoming more demanding about distinguishing between:

someone who can superficially satisfy the elements of a category,

and someone whose actual career fits the purpose of that category.

An EB-1B approval rate around 93% may look like a bright spot in an increasingly difficult environment.

But EB-1B is not a newly discovered shortcut.

It has been there all along.

For years, EB-1A and NIW were so attractive that many eligible academics simply did not look carefully at it.

Now that those paths have become more difficult, the contrast has become impossible to ignore.

And perhaps that leads to the most important lesson:

Sometimes the best immigration strategy is not to make yourself sound more “extraordinary.” It is to identify the legal category that most accurately describes the professional you have already become.

The doors have not disappeared.

Different people simply belong at different doors.

 

This article is only for your reference. Please do not apply mechanically to any exact cases. You are welcome to consult our attorneys at Liu & Associates, P.C. For contact information, please click here.