The EB-1A immigrant visa, classified under Employment-Based First Preference, represents one of the most desirable routes to U.S. permanent residency for individuals demonstrating extraordinary ability in the fields of sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Unlike many other employment-based categories, the EB-1A does not necessitate employer sponsorship or labor certification. Instead, it mandates a stringent demonstration of sustained national or international recognition through evidence that satisfies at least three out of ten specific regulatory criteria or the possession of a one-time major international award. Due to its self-petitionable nature and relatively swift pathway to a green card, the EB-1A has emerged as a preferred option for distinguished professionals, entrepreneurs, and researchers who aspire to make contributions to the United States.

In the final year of the Obama administration and the onset of the Trump administration (FY 2016–2017), the approval environment for EB-1A was notably stable and favorable. In FY 2016, approval rates were approximately 84.8%, rising to 89.9% in FY 2017. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) were issued, but they typically had a narrow focus, and the adjudicative culture generally favored talent immigration through a consistent interpretation of the regulatory framework. The overall atmosphere encouraged highly qualified professionals to submit applications with confidence, as the majority of petitions that met the criteria received positive outcomes without significant resistance from USCIS.

Nonetheless, the adjudicative environment underwent considerable changes during the Trump administration. Starting in FY 2018, EB-1A adjudications became significantly more stringent. The approval rate decreased to around 75.3% and further declined to 53.5% in FY 2019, marking nearly a 40% reduction from FY 2017. This downward trajectory mirrored a wider immigration philosophy under the Trump administration that prioritized enforcement, restrictions, and skepticism towards even lawful immigration avenues. Although the EB-1A regulatory criteria remained the same, adjudicators interpreted them much more conservatively, frequently demanding documentation that exceeded the standards that had been previously accepted. Petitioners were often required to provide detailed letters from several independent experts, quantifiable metrics such as citation indices, and comprehensive documentation for awards, media coverage, and proof of leadership roles.

The rise in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) was one of the most prominent signs of this shift. USCIS began to issue RFEs in the majority of cases, often requesting additional evidence for each criterion even when clear documentation had already been provided. Numerous attorneys observed that RFEs not only became more frequent but also broader and more exacting. This resulted in significantly extended processing times and heightened legal expenses for applicants, particularly those submitting applications without legal representation. Alongside delays and financial strains, the unpredictability brought about by the more aggressive adjudicative stance instilled fear and uncertainty among petitioners—especially researchers and entrepreneurs who might have otherwise qualified as strong candidates for EB-1A under previous standards.

A series of policy measures and administrative directives have led to a more restrictive environment. In particular, the executive order titled “Buy American, Hire American” issued by the Trump administration indicated a federal commitment to tighten the U.S. immigration system and restrict immigration that is perceived as not directly advantageous to American workers. Although the EB-1A category aims to attract global talent without the necessity of specific job offers, this executive order has affected the tone and practices of adjudication. Likewise, proposals such as the RAISE Act—despite never being enacted—sought to reduce the overall number of green cards and promoted a skills-based points system that could deprioritize self-petitioned categories like EB-1A. These legislative and administrative signals have collectively altered the approach of adjudicators, leading to increased suspicion and conservatism in the evaluation of extraordinary ability petitions.

The repercussions have gone beyond mere policy and numerical changes. The immigration legal community has reported a rising level of concern among both petitioners and practitioners. Business immigration attorneys have noted that many qualified individuals—particularly those in entrepreneurial or interdisciplinary sectors—have started to doubt the viability of the EB-1A option. This has resulted in a chilling effect on talent mobility and retention, prompting some applicants to seek opportunities in Canada, Europe, or Australia. Additionally, the increased scrutiny has disproportionately affected applicants from non-traditional backgrounds or from nations experiencing political tensions with the U.S., such as China and Iran. While these individuals were not explicitly targeted, they often faced the harsh consequences of unclear consular decisions and more rigorous vetting processes.

The chilling effect also permeated academia and scientific research. During the Trump administration, scientists of Chinese origin, in particular, voiced heightened concerns regarding scrutiny and surveillance, partly due to broader enforcement initiatives such as the China Initiative. Although this policy aimed at potential espionage, its unintended consequences deterred many foreign researchers from pursuing or maintaining U.S. immigration processes, including EB-1A. Consequently, the U.S. experienced a decline in its competitive advantage in attracting global scientific talent during this time, which has long-term repercussions for innovation and research leadership.

Even though the regulatory framework remained unchanged, the application of EB-1A criteria during the Trump administration shifted in a way that made success increasingly difficult to predict and attain. For example, criteria like “original contributions of major significance” or “published material about the petitioner” started to be interpreted much more restrictively. USCIS officers frequently overlooked expert opinion letters unless they were supported by independent, quantifiable evidence. Media coverage was dismissed unless it originated from well-established sources. In certain instances, adjudicators rejected professional memberships, claiming they were not exclusive enough—even when they had been accepted under similar conditions in the past. This inconsistent and subjective enforcement of rules fostered an environment where even the most carefully prepared and well-documented petitions could be unsuccessful.

In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, the Biden administration undertook significant measures to mitigate some of the adverse effects. During fiscal years 2021 and 2022, the approval rates for EB-1A applications rebounded to approximately 78.1% and 84.1%, respectively. USCIS began to issue more reasonable Requests for Evidence (RFEs), processing times improved, and a more talent-friendly atmosphere was reinstated. Nevertheless, the repercussions of the adjudications from the Trump administration remain evident. Many petitioners continued to be cautious, and certain policy restrictions seemed to have become entrenched. For instance, adjudicators still anticipated highly detailed documentation and compelling narratives, particularly from less conventional applicants. The burden of proof remained substantial, and although approval rates saw an improvement, they did not indicate a return to the leniency or predictability characteristic of the pre-2017 period.

Interestingly, even after Trump vacated the presidency, the approval rates for EB-1A in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 began to decline once more—to approximately 70.5% and 60.65%, respectively. This trend suggests that while some of the scrutiny from the Trump era may have lessened, its institutional impacts have endured. Furthermore, there may be additional structural factors contributing to this recent decline, such as an increase in filing volume, adjudicator fatigue, and ongoing changes in how USCIS interprets evidence for specific criteria. While not all of these issues can be directly linked to Trump-era policies, the aggressive stance taken between 2017 and 2020 undoubtedly initiated patterns of adjudication that continue to affect current practices.

In contrast, petitions for the EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) saw even more significant declines in FY 2024, with approval rates falling to 43.3%. In comparison, EB-1A appears to remain relatively stable, though it is under pressure. Nevertheless, both categories illustrate how wider policy environments and administrative discretion can influence immigration results without any formal regulatory modifications. For petitioners, this indicates that high-quality documentation, expert letters, and thorough evidence are more essential than ever.

In conclusion, the Trump administration fundamentally transformed the adjudicative environment for EB-1A petitions. By instilling skepticism into the USCIS review process, increasing documentation requirements, and fostering a nationalistic approach to immigration benefits, it deterred many otherwise qualified individuals from applying or succeeding. While the Biden administration has reinstated some balance and optimism, recent data indicate that the legacy of Trump’s policies continues to have an impact. Petitioners must now navigate a landscape influenced by political cycles, changing agency culture, and heightened scrutiny. For those aiming to self-petition under EB-1A, achieving success today necessitates not only extraordinary ability but also exceptional preparation, persistence, and patience.

By: Karim Jivani

Karim Jivani is an Associate Attorney at Reddy Neumann Brown PC who focuses on employment-based non-immigrant visas. Karim’s practice covers all phases of the EB-1A and EB-2 NIW visa process including filing petitions, responding to Requests for Evidence (RFE), and drafting motions and appeals. Karim has also worked on all aspects of H-1B, L-1, I-140, and VAWA petitions.