Recent EB-1A and EB-2 NIW Adjudication Trends: 2024 Q4 Edition
When cases are denied by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), applicants can have the decision reconsidered by filing a motion with the service center that denied the case or submitting an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
What is the AAO?
The AAO publishes its decisions. Unlike the court system, the rationale utilized by the AAO to affirm or overturn denial is not binding on other cases. However, the facts of each case and AAO analysis of the regulations in each published appeal can still provide valuable insight into the mind of adjudicators and agency-wide priorities.
I recently reviewed 58 of these decisions published between December 1-31, 2024. Here are my findings:
EB-1A
*The word “remanded” means that the AAO sent the case back to the USCIS office that initially denied the case to reconsider. It doesn’t necessarily mean the case will be approved, but it is a strong indication that it will be.
The majority of these petitions were denied because they did not satisfy at least 3 of the 10 criteria to qualify for EB-1A status. Some of these petitions satisfied 2 and narrowly missed approval; others satisfied no criteria at all. For example:
Just because a research scientist has published their findings they do not automatically satisfy the “scholarly articles” criterion; the journals must be “major” (i.e., national or international circulation).
While a CEO received praise from prior employers, that alone does not establish an original contribution of major significance; their work must make an impact in the field and not just in their own workplace.
EB-2 NIW
The main reason why the majority of these petitions were denied was because while the applicant may have had a significant impact on their company or local community, the evidence did not show how the applicant’s work would make an impact on a national scale. For example:
An architect specializing in sustainable design argued that their contributions would help address the national housing crisis - however, they did not document or describe exactly how they would do that.
A hemodialysis nurse started a very impactful and successful business model for providing mobile dialysis services - while the impact on individual patients was great, the applicant did not show how this service could create systemic change.
A U.S. army chaplain provided critical services to members of the armed forces - however, they could not show how their services would have a broad, national impact.
Key Takeaways
Many of these EB-2 NIW and EB-1A petitions should never have been filed because they do not meet the bare minimum requirements for approval. In the current political and economic climate, intending immigrants are desperately searching for answers; unfortunately, this may lead to taking outsized risks. Due to the high cost and very high stakes involved in applying for an EB-1A or EB-2 NIW petition, it is always worth getting a second opinion from an experienced U.S. immigration attorney.
