For many EB-1A and EB-2 National Interest Waiver applicants, the latest USCIS Form I-140 data raises an important question:
Are EB-1A and NIW cases becoming harder to win?
The short answer is: the data suggests a more difficult adjudication environment, especially for EB-1A and NIW petitions. But the numbers must be read carefully.
Many online discussions reduce USCIS statistics to one simple statement: “approval rates are down.” That may sound useful, but it can also be misleading if the data is calculated or explained incorrectly.
The latest Form I-140 data does show fewer approvals in key self-sponsored categories when compared with prior periods. It also shows high pending inventories and a decision pattern that should concern applicants who are preparing EB-1A or NIW petitions. But the data does not mean every applicant now has the same probability of denial. It does not tell us the quality of each petition. It does not tell us whether the petition used strong objective evidence, whether the legal argument was persuasive, or whether the case was filed before the applicant was ready.
That distinction matters.
USCIS publishes Form I-140 data through its Immigration and Citizenship Data page. Form I-140 is the immigrant petition used for many employment-based immigrant classifications, including EB-1 and EB-2 categories.
What the Latest USCIS I-140 Data Shows
The FY2026 Q1 Form I-140 data shows that EB-1A and NIW petitions are facing a more selective environment.
For EB-1A, listed in the USCIS table as Alien of Extraordinary Ability (E11), the FY2026 Q1 data shows:
- 7,756 received
- 2,180 approved
- 2,414 denied
- 24,653 pending
For National Interest Waiver (NIW), the FY2026 Q1 data shows:
- 13,829 received
- 2,380 approved
- 3,206 denied
- 82,812 pending
These numbers are significant. In both EB-1A and NIW, denials exceeded approvals in FY2026 Q1.
But this is where applicants must be careful. These numbers should not be interpreted as a simple approval rate based on petitions received in the same quarter.
Why Approval Numbers Are Not the Same as Approval Rates
One of the most common mistakes in reading USCIS data is dividing the number of approvals by the number of receipts and calling that the approval rate.
That is not accurate.
A petition received in one quarter may not be approved or denied in that same quarter. A petition approved in FY2026 Q1 may have been filed in FY2025. A petition denied in FY2026 Q1 may also have been received in an earlier reporting period.
USCIS data tables themselves make this point clear: approvals, denials, and pending cases during a reporting period may include petitions received in earlier periods.
This means applicants should not look at a quarter’s “received” number and compare it directly to that same quarter’s “approved” number as if those are the same group of cases.
A more careful way to discuss the data is to compare approvals and denials among cases that received a decision during the reporting period. Even then, that should be described as the share of decisions during that period, not as a guaranteed approval probability for any individual applicant.
For example, in FY2026 Q1, EB-1A had 2,180 approvals and 2,414 denials. Among EB-1A cases that received either an approval or denial decision during that quarter, approvals represented approximately 47.5% of those decisions, while denials represented approximately 52.5%.
For NIW, FY2026 Q1 had 2,380 approvals and 3,206 denials. Among NIW cases that received either an approval or denial decision during that quarter, approvals represented approximately 42.6% of those decisions, while denials represented approximately 57.4%.
Those numbers are not predictions for every applicant. But they are a serious warning that petition quality, evidence strategy, and legal framing matter more than ever.
EB-1A: What Changed from FY2025 to FY2026 Q1
The EB-1A trend is especially important.
In FY2025, USCIS reported 12,468 EB-1A approvals and 6,165 EB-1A denials for the full fiscal year. Among EB-1A cases that received either an approval or denial decision during FY2025, approvals represented approximately 66.9% of those decisions.
By FY2026 Q1, that decision mix had changed. EB-1A approvals fell to 2,180, while denials rose to 2,414 for the quarter. That means denials exceeded approvals in FY2026 Q1.
The quarter-over-quarter comparison from FY2025 Q4 to FY2026 Q1 is also notable:
- EB-1A receipts increased from 7,464 to 7,756
- EB-1A approvals declined from 2,331 to 2,180
- EB-1A denials increased from 2,033 to 2,414
- EB-1A pending cases increased from 21,157 to 24,653
This does not mean EB-1A is no longer viable. It means USCIS appears to be applying serious scrutiny to whether the evidence actually satisfies the extraordinary ability standard.
An EB-1A petition should do more than show that the applicant is talented or successful. USCIS guidance for EB-1A focuses on extraordinary ability and the applicant’s continued work in the area of expertise.
In practical terms, a strong EB-1A petition should not simply list awards, publications, media mentions, judging experience, memberships, or recommendation letters. It must explain why that evidence proves sustained recognition and why the applicant stands out in the field.
A long petition is not automatically a strong petition. A strong resume is not automatically an EB-1A case.
NIW: Why the Trend Is Serious but Must Be Read Carefully
The NIW data also deserves careful attention.
In FY2025, USCIS reported 19,532 NIW approvals and 15,863 NIW denials for the full fiscal year. Among NIW cases that received either an approval or denial decision during FY2025, approvals represented approximately 55.2% of those decisions.
In FY2026 Q1, NIW approvals were 2,380, while denials were 3,206. Among NIW cases decided by approval or denial during that quarter, denials represented a majority of decisions.
However, the NIW trend should not be overstated in the wrong way.
Compared with FY2025 Q4, NIW denials actually declined from 5,356 to 3,206 in FY2026 Q1. But approvals also declined, from 2,968 to 2,380. Pending NIW cases increased from 74,392 to 82,812.
So the correct message is not simply “NIW denials are rising every quarter.” The more accurate message is this:
NIW remains under significant scrutiny, approvals have declined compared with prior periods, and pending inventory continues to grow.
This matters because many NIW applicants misunderstand what USCIS is evaluating.
NIW is not just a resume-based petition. Under the Matter of Dhanasar framework, the applicant must show that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, that the applicant is well positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.
That is a legal argument, not just a document checklist.
Why Pending Cases Matter
Pending inventory is another important part of the story.
At the end of FY2026 Q1, USCIS reported:
- 24,653 pending EB-1A cases
- 82,812 pending NIW cases
A pending case is not an approval. It is not a denial. It is simply a case awaiting decision.
Applicants should avoid reading too much into pending numbers alone. A case may remain pending for many reasons. It may later be approved, denied, or receive a Request for Evidence.
But large pending inventories do matter because they show how many cases are still waiting for adjudication. They also help explain why applicants may experience uncertainty, delays, and anxiety while waiting for a decision.
For NIW in particular, the pending inventory is substantial. That reflects the continued popularity of NIW as a self-sponsored green card path, especially among professionals, researchers, founders, engineers, physicians, entrepreneurs, consultants, and business owners.
Why Many Online Sources Misread USCIS Statistics
A major problem in immigration content is that many online sources simplify USCIS statistics in ways that are not fully accurate.
The most common mistake is treating the number of approvals in a quarter as if those approvals came only from petitions received in that same quarter.
Another mistake is assuming that USCIS data reveals why cases were denied. It does not.
The data does not show whether a denied petition had weak recommendation letters. It does not show whether the proposed endeavor was unclear. It does not show whether the applicant relied too heavily on AI-generated language. It does not show whether the petition failed to connect the evidence to the legal standard.
The data shows outcomes. It does not show the full quality of the petition record.
That is why applicants should use the data as a warning sign, not as a complete explanation.
The warning is clear: USCIS is not simply counting documents. Officers are evaluating whether the evidence actually proves the legal requirements.
What Applicants Should Do Differently Now
In today’s EB-1A and NIW environment, applicants should approach filing more strategically.
First, applicants should review whether their evidence supports the specific legal standard. A strong professional profile is helpful, but it is not enough by itself. The petition must connect the evidence to the category.
For EB-1A, that means showing more than professional success. The petition should demonstrate recognition, impact, and distinction in the field.
For NIW, that means showing more than career achievement. The petition should clearly explain the proposed endeavor, why it has substantial merit and national importance, why the applicant is well positioned to advance it, and why the United States would benefit from waiving the job offer and labor certification requirement.
Second, applicants should avoid generic petition templates. A template may look polished, but it often fails to explain the applicant’s specific field, impact, and evidence.
Third, applicants should be careful with recommendation letters. Letters can support a case, but they rarely carry the entire petition by themselves. USCIS generally gives more weight to objective and corroborating evidence, such as publications, citations, patents, contracts, media coverage, awards, judging invitations, business growth, adoption of work, measurable impact, expert recognition, or other field-specific evidence.
Fourth, applicants should be cautious with AI-generated petition drafts. AI can help organize information, summarize evidence, and improve readability. But AI cannot independently verify legal sufficiency. It may also exaggerate achievements, create unsupported arguments, or produce generic language that does not match the record.
Fifth, applicants should consider timing. Filing too early can be risky. Some applicants may need several months or even a year to strengthen their evidence before filing.
What This Means for Founders, Researchers, Physicians, Engineers, and Business Owners
The current data is especially relevant for self-sponsored applicants.
Founders and business owners may have strong companies, but they still need to explain why their proposed endeavor has broader U.S. importance. Revenue alone may not be enough. The petition should show how the business connects to economic development, job creation, innovation, industry growth, technology, public benefit, or another nationally important area.
Researchers and scientists may have publications and citations, but they still need to show why their work matters and how their contributions fit into the broader field.
Physicians may have strong clinical experience, but they should connect their work to healthcare access, specialized treatment, public health, underserved populations, research, medical innovation, or another broader U.S. interest where applicable.
Engineers and technology professionals may have valuable technical experience, but they need to explain the practical impact of their work and why their role is important to advancing the proposed endeavor.
In every case, the petition should answer the same core question:
Why does this evidence prove eligibility under the legal standard?
The Bottom Line
The latest USCIS I-140 data should not cause qualified applicants to panic. EB-1A and EB-2 NIW remain important options for highly qualified professionals, founders, researchers, physicians, engineers, entrepreneurs, and business owners.
But the data does show that applicants should be more careful.
Compared with FY2025, the FY2026 Q1 data shows fewer approvals and a more difficult decision mix for EB-1A and NIW. EB-1A denials exceeded approvals in FY2026 Q1. NIW denials also exceeded approvals in the same quarter. Pending inventories continued to grow in both categories.
The practical lesson is simple:
Applicants should not file based only on confidence, credentials, or online advice. They should file when their evidence and legal strategy are ready.
A successful EB-1A or NIW petition is not just a collection of documents. It is a carefully structured argument supported by credible, relevant, and objective evidence.
Considering EB-1A or EB-2 NIW?
If you are considering an EB-1A or EB-2 NIW petition, now is the time to evaluate the strength of your evidence before filing.
Kameli Law assists professionals, researchers, physicians, engineers, founders, entrepreneurs, business owners, and other qualified applicants with EB-1 and EB-2 NIW case evaluations.
Request an EB-1 / EB-2 NIW case evaluation to better understand whether your profile and evidence may support a petition.
