The number: 32.2%, and falling for three straight quarters
In the third quarter of FY2026, April through June 2026, USCIS decided 4,180 EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions. It approved 1,348 and denied 2,832, an approval rate of 32.2%, or more than two denials for every approval. That figure comes from the agency’s quarterly Form I-140 data, published September 8, 2026, and it is the third drop in a row. The rate was 47.5% in Q1 and 41.8% in Q2, and it had held in a band of roughly 67% to 78% across FY2022 through FY2025.
The queue is growing at the same time. USCIS received 6,036 new EB-1A petitions in Q3, and the number pending rose from 24,785 at the end of Q1 to 28,874 at the end of Q3.
| Period | Approved | Denied | EB-1A approval rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026 Q1 | 2,164 | 2,394 | 47.5% |
| FY2026 Q2 | 1,720 | 2,394 | 41.8% |
| FY2026 Q3 | 1,348 | 2,832 | 32.2% |
| FY2026 year to date | 5,232 | 7,620 | 40.7% |
Approval rates count decided cases only, approvals divided by approvals plus denials. For comparison, EB-1A cleared 74% in FY2022, 78% in FY2023, 72% in FY2024, and 67% in FY2025. The approval-rate tracker charts the full EB-1A and NIW series.
“An EB-1A that meets three criteria used to be a reasonable bet. In Q3 FY2026, USCIS denied more than two of these petitions for every one it approved.”
The drop is specific to EB-1A
The most useful thing about the Q3 data is what did not fall. EB-1 has three subcategories, and only one of them moved. In the same quarter, USCIS approved 93.0% of EB-1B outstanding professor and researcher petitions and 97.4% of EB-1C multinational executive petitions, both in line with the rest of the year. Set against the rest of the I-140 data, EB-1A is now the lowest-approved category of the eight USCIS reports.
| Category (Q3 FY2026) | Approved | Denied | Approval rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| EB-1A extraordinary ability | 1,348 | 2,832 | 32.2% |
| EB-2 national interest waiver | 3,835 | 3,103 | 55.3% |
| EB-1B outstanding researcher | 1,408 | 106 | 93.0% |
| EB-1C multinational executive | 3,658 | 96 | 97.4% |
| O-category petitions (Form I-129) | 7,970 | 789 | 91.0% |
The NIW row matters because the two self-petitions have now crossed. A year ago NIW was the category in freefall. It has since recovered for three straight quarters, and the NIW trajectory now sits about 23 points above EB-1A.
What the pattern does and does not tell you
USCIS has not explained the decline, and the published data cannot say why individual petitions were denied. It does rule some explanations out and point toward others.
It is not a general slowdown
If USCIS were simply processing I-140s more slowly or more cautiously across the board, EB-1B and EB-1C would show it too, and they do not. The drop also comes from denials, not from fewer decisions, since EB-1A denials rose from 2,394 in Q1 to 2,832 in Q3 while approvals fell from 2,164 to 1,348. Adjudicators are deciding plenty of EB-1A cases and turning more of them down.
It sits where the standard is highest and the review is most discretionary
EB-1A differs from its two siblings in two ways. It is self-petitioned, with no employer standing behind the case, and it is judged against the most demanding definition in the employment-based system. Under 8 CFR 204.5(h), the applicant must be one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. USCIS applies that through a two-step review, described in its policy manual guidance on extraordinary ability. The officer first counts whether at least three of the ten regulatory criteria are met, then makes a final merits determination of whether the record as a whole shows sustained acclaim at the top of the field. The second step is where the officer’s judgment carries the most weight, and a denial rate this high is consistent with more petitions clearing the criteria count and failing the final merits review. That is a reading of the pattern rather than a finding USCIS has published.
The O-category contrast sharpens the point
O-category petitions, filed on Form I-129, cleared at 91.0% in Q3, 7,970 approvals against 789 denials, and held there all year. The O-1A uses closely related extraordinary ability language, so the gap suggests the problem is less the concept of extraordinary ability than how strictly it is being applied to a permanent benefit. One caution applies: USCIS reports all O classifications together, including the arts-focused O-1B and the O-2 and O-3 support categories, so the 91% is not a pure O-1A figure.
How to decide whether to file an EB-1A now
The numbers do not close the door on EB-1A, since a record that plainly shows sustained acclaim at the top of the field still gets approved. What has largely disappeared is the margin for a petition assembled to meet three criteria without a strong final merits case. That makes the choice of category worth revisiting rather than defaulting to EB-1A because it once looked like the prestige route.
Match the record to the route with the best odds
- Built around a specific endeavor of national importance: consider the EB-2 NIW, which approved 55.3% in Q3 and does not require showing acclaim at the very top of the field
- A permanent research job offer in hand: EB-1B approved 93.0% in Q3 and carries the same first-preference priority date advantage as EB-1A
- A qualifying executive or managerial role in a multinational: EB-1C approved 97.4%
- A strong record that is not yet final-merits ready: an O-1A keeps you working in the US while the record matures, and the O-category approved 91.0% in Q3
- A record that clearly clears the final merits bar: EB-1A remains the right filing, built around the whole-record case rather than a criteria checklist
For researchers deciding among these routes, the decision framework for researchers works through the choice fact by fact, and the researcher evidence checklist covers the impact evidence that final merits reviews now weigh most. The EB-1 overview lays out how the three first-preference paths differ. Premium processing will get an EB-1A decided within 15 business days, which helps with planning but does not change the standard the petition is judged against.