What to Make of Current EB1A Adjudication One Year Into Trump 2.0
Starting off the new year here with a brief overview on my current read of what is happening right now with USCIS in regards to EB1A adjudication a year into the new administration, or as we’ll call it, Trump 2.0. We’ve seen from official agency data that EB1A approval rates have steadily dropped through FY 2025 Q3 (through June 2025) to a recent low point of 67%. For reference, the historical approval rate is usually in the mid 70s%, with slight variance, but rarely ever reaching into the 80s% or 60s%. In addition to the official data that is by the time of this post, already 6 months old, Lawfully is projecting the approval rate to drop even further to 53% for FY 2025 Q4 (through October 2025). It remains to be seen if this proves to be accurate, but it certainly tracks with what I and other immigration attorneys are seeing anecdotally.
Now we can get into a discussion of what this data actually means. One question I’ve been getting a lot: is the agency actually making it harder for EB1A cases to get approved? And the answer: Probably. The truth is, no one knows for sure and it is very likely a result of a combination of factors, not just the agency being more strict in its adjudication. Publicly, the agency has not made any changes to published EB1A adjudication standards. But as I know, and most can probably guess, this doesn’t mean the agency hasn’t shifted their adjudication posture. Word gets around among the officer corps, from front-line supervisors to the officers themselves, of what the “vibes” are from leadership changes and what the expectations are. Officers aren’t stupid and even those that try to ignore office politics, know when adjudication standards are shifted even without explicit changes. When the new USCIS director said in a public interview he “didn’t NECESSARILY want officers to get to no,” this was likely just a small preview of what the “vibes” have been feeling like inside the agency. So officers may very likely feel more emboldened to dismiss marginal evidence or enact a higher standard by themselves as maybe that’s what they are seeing from other officers and supervisors. This could certainly account for a small drop in approvals or some of the more egregious RFE/NOIDs being reported.
Other than the agency changing its adjudication stance, what else could be influencing the drop in EB1A approvals? One is the quality of the cases themselves. I say there’s 3 components to EB1A adjudication: 1) Petitioner’s profile and evidence, 2) Presentation of that profile and evidence, 3) An officer’s view of #1 and #2. I’ve consulted with over 35 EB1A petitioners in almost 3 months since returning to practice, and these have been in all stages of the process from pre-application to after a denial. Very few (maybe 5 or so) have had what I consider strong profiles to apply, with the rest being marginal cases. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t apply, but it does mean they should be prepared for a more difficult process as I detail below. In addition to the quality of profiles and underlying evidence, some of the presentation I’ve seen from self-petitioners and even notable attorneys has been troubling. There appears to be a lot of AI assisted drafting which makes the petitions feel the same and burdens them with a whole lot of content, but not much substance. And a lot of these filings are way, way too large, both in terms of word and page count. Officers will likely get through a petition in 1-2 hours, and with that time, they may only spend 15-30 minutes reading the cover letter. This means presentation matters a lot and knowing what officers are looking for even more so. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if some of the drop in approval rate is based on the low quality of petitioner profiles and filings that I have been seeing.
What does this mean for cases moving forward? Be prepared for RFEs, NOIDs, and unfortunately, denials even for marginally strong cases. Most EB1A cases fall into a bell curve distribution of 60% being borderline, with another 20% being sure thing and the other 20% clearly not meeting the criteria. So this majority of cases depend on quality of evidence, proper presentation, and individual officer acceptance. Petitioners and attorneys can control #1 and #2, but don’t have control over #3. And if the case is in the 60%, then its possible even when #1 and #2 are done perfectly, an officer may now feel more empowered or emboldened to deny. This is certainly what we could be witnessing right now and its very difficult to account for or even pin down with data.
