EB-1A Approval Rates by Profession in 2026: Who’s Winning and Who’s Struggling?

If you are researching the EB1A Approval Rate by Profession, you will quickly encounter claims that researchers enjoy high approval rates while founders, engineers, or digital creators face lower odds. Those claims may sound convincing, but they are not supported by a representative USCIS profession-by-profession dataset.

Build Your EB1A Roadmap 

USCIS publishes I-140 data showing receipts, approvals, denials, and pending cases under classifications that include the “Alien of Extraordinary Ability” category. It does not publish a reliable approval ranking for researchers, software engineers, athletes, performers, executives, or founders.

That distinction matters. Professional background influences the type of evidence an applicant can present, but it does not create a guaranteed approval advantage. The real issue is whether the evidence satisfies the regulatory criteria and, taken together, demonstrates sustained acclaim, recognized achievements, and standing near the top of the field.

Read More: Inside a Shock NOID: How a High-Profile EB1A Applicant Almost Lost Their Case (and How It Was Saved) 

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and is not legal advice. EB-1A eligibility depends on the specific facts and evidence in an individual petition.

EB1A Data by Field 2026

What USCIS actually reports

USCIS classifies EB-1A petitions under the “Alien of Extraordinary Ability” category, commonly identified as E11 in agency data. Its reports may include:

• Petitions received.
• Petitions approved.
• Petitions denied.
• Pending petitions.
• Fiscal-year and quarterly data.
• Certain country and classification information.

What USCIS does not provide is a comprehensive dataset showing how many EB-1A petitions filed by researchers, founders, engineers, artists, or other professionals were approved or denied.

That means online claims about EB1A Data by Field in 2026 should be evaluated according to the quality of the underlying methodology. Third-party dashboards, law-firm reports, and administrative-decision analyses can offer useful insights, but they may reflect a limited client base, selected decisions, voluntarily submitted cases, or an undisclosed sample.

Before relying on any profession-specific statistic, check whether the source identifies:

• The complete case universe.
• The denominator used to calculate the rate.
• The petition classification.
• The decision period.
• The treatment of pending cases.
• The method used to identify an applicant’s profession.

Without that information, the result should be described as an observation or sample, not an official USCIS approval rate.

Understanding USCIS Approval Trends

Quarterly approval data also requires careful interpretation. The percentage of approvals among cases decided during a quarter is not the same as the probability that a newly filed petition will eventually be approved.

For example, reported FY 2026 Q1 E11 data showed 2,180 approvals and 2,414 denials, which equals approximately 47.5% approvals among cases with an approval or denial recorded during that reporting period. That figure does not represent the expected success rate for every petition filed during Q1 because cases received in one period may be decided later, and pending cases are not denials.

These USCIS Approval Trends may help identify changes in adjudication activity, but they cannot establish:

• An individual applicant’s approval probability.
• A profession-specific success rate.
• The percentage of denials caused by the final-merits determination.
• A permanent USCIS policy shift affecting every professional field.

The safest conclusion is that available data may describe petition activity, but it cannot reliably predict the outcome of a particular EB-1A case.

EB1A Statistics by Industry

A profession affects the type of evidence an applicant can present. It does not automatically determine the strength of the petition.

Professional profile	Potentially useful evidence	Main challenge
Academic or STEM researcher	Citations, scholarly publications, peer review, grants, awards, patents, expert analysis	Showing that the work is of major significance rather than merely published or cited
Performing artist	Awards, leading roles, published reviews, exhibitions, commercial success, distinguished organizations	Demonstrating sustained acclaim and individual recognition
Professional athlete	Rankings, awards, official competition records, published coverage, selection records	Establishing the significance and recognition of the competitions
Corporate technology professional	Patents, publications, open-source adoption, licensing, technical leadership, compensation evidence	Connecting company-specific accomplishments to significance in the field
Founder or digital creator	Independent media, audience metrics, commercial success, awards, partnerships, adoption	Separating recognition of the individual from the success of the venture

This is the appropriate way to discuss EB1A Statistics by Industry. The focus should be on evidence patterns and documentation challenges, not on a ranking of guaranteed approval outcomes.

How USCIS Evaluates EB-1A

Under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h), an EB-1A applicant must demonstrate extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics through sustained national or international acclaim. The applicant must also show that the achievements have been recognized in the field and that they will continue working in their area of expertise in the United States.

An applicant generally qualifies through one of two routes:

• Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award.
• Evidence satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria.

Meeting three criteria is important, but it does not guarantee approval. USCIS applies a two-stage analysis.

Step one: Meeting the regulatory criteria

At the first stage, USCIS determines whether the evidence satisfies the plain-language requirements of at least three regulatory criteria under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Examples include:

• A scholarly article potentially satisfying the authorship criterion.
• A journal peer-review assignment potentially satisfying the judging criterion.
• A patent potentially supporting an original-contributions argument.
• Compensation records potentially satisfying the high-salary criterion.

The petition should do more than list documents. It should explain exactly what each document proves and why it satisfies the relevant regulatory language.

Step two: The final merits determination

At the second stage, USCIS evaluates the record as a whole. The agency considers whether the evidence demonstrates sustained acclaim, recognized achievements, and placement among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. USCIS refers to this as a whole-record final-merits determination.

This stage is not an extra list of criteria. It is the point at which USCIS asks whether the complete record supports the conclusion that the applicant is genuinely extraordinary under the statutory standard.

USCIS does not publish data showing what percentage of 2026 denials occurred at the final-merits stage. Accordingly, claims that most current denials or requests for evidence result from final-merits problems should not be presented as established fact.

EB1A for Researchers vs Founders

The comparison of EB1A for Researchers vs Founders shows why evidence can look very different across fields.

Researchers often work in disciplines with established systems for recording citations, publications, peer review, and conference participation. Founders may need to distinguish recognition of the individual from the growth of the company or product.

Neither profile automatically has a higher approval rate.

Academic researchers and STEM professionals

Researchers may have evidence relevant to several criteria, including:

• Authorship of scholarly articles.
• Judging the work of others.
• Original scientific or technical contributions.
• Awards or selective memberships.
• Published material about the applicant or the applicant’s work.
• High remuneration, where supported by appropriate comparisons.

Citation counts, h-index scores, journal impact factors, peer-review invitations, and research grants can provide valuable context. They are not automatic substitutes for the EB-1A standard.

A strong research petition should explain:

• How the applicant’s citation record compares with norms in the specialty.
• Whether citations are independent.
• Why the work matters.
• Whether others have adopted, applied, or relied on it.
• How the evidence demonstrates sustained acclaim rather than one successful publication.

USCIS does not impose a universal “top 1%” citation threshold. A top-percentile ranking may strengthen the record, but it is not a regulatory requirement. Likewise, a publication, grant, or patent may show originality or professional activity without proving that the contribution is of major significance.

Founders And Digital Creators

Founders and digital creators can present compelling evidence, but the petition must carefully separate the individual’s achievements from the success of the company, platform, or channel.

Potentially relevant evidence may include:

• Selective awards.
• Independent media coverage.
• Significant audience or engagement metrics.
• Commercial success.
• Major partnerships.
• Adoption by independent users or organizations.
• Invitations to judge or speak based on recognized expertise.
• Leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
• Original contributions supported by independent evidence.

Venture capital funding may demonstrate market validation or the significance of a company. It is not automatically a qualifying award and does not, by itself, prove that the founder made a contribution of major significance.

Media coverage also requires context. A press release or sponsored article may show that information was published, but the petition should establish the publication’s audience, the nature of the coverage, and whether it reflects genuine recognition rather than simple promotion. USCIS guidance has clarified aspects of the published-material criterion, including that the material does not necessarily have to prove the value of the applicant’s work by itself.

Evidence Under Key Criteria

Judging the Work Of Others

The judging criterion addresses participation as a judge of the work of others, individually or on a panel, in the same or an allied field.

Potentially persuasive examples include:

• Reviewing manuscripts for recognized journals.
• Evaluating grant proposals.
• Serving on a selection panel for a respected award.
• Judging recognized competitions.
• Reviewing submissions for an established professional conference.

The regulation does not require that a journal be “top tier,” that the review be multi-blind, or that the judging committee be international. Those facts may affect the evidence’s weight, but they are not universal requirements.

Internal code reviews, performance evaluations, or company hackathons may be less persuasive because of their limited scope or lack of external recognition. They should not, however, be described as automatically disqualified.

Talk to an EB1A Expert 

Leading or critical role

This criterion requires evidence that the applicant performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation.

Useful documentation may address:

• The applicant’s title and responsibilities.
• The importance of the applicant’s function.
• The organization’s reputation.
• The applicant’s measurable effect on the organization.
• Independent records confirming the role.

Industry-wide adoption is not required for this criterion. Adoption may instead support an argument that the applicant made an original contribution of major significance.

High salary

The high-salary criterion requires evidence that the applicant has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.

The regulation does not require compensation above the 99th percentile, use of a particular Bureau of Labor Statistics table, or submission of tax filings.

A persuasive comparison should account for:

• Occupation.
• Geographic location.
• Seniority.
• Industry.
• Base salary.
• Bonuses.
• Equity or other remuneration.
• Whether compensation is guaranteed, earned, vested, or speculative.

Employment agreements, payroll records, tax documents, compensation surveys, equity records, and authoritative market data may all be relevant, depending on the facts.

A Practical Strategy For 2026

Applicants should focus on the quality, context, and independent significance of their evidence, not on unsupported profession-based predictions.

Document Measurable Impact

Do not simply list patents, publications, product launches, or media appearances. Explain what changed because of the applicant’s work and provide evidence of adoption, influence, commercial use, citations, implementation, or recognition.

Build Independent Corroboration

Expert letters can be useful when they provide specific facts, explain the writer’s qualifications, and connect the applicant’s work to its significance in the field. Independent records, such as licensing agreements, usage data, official rankings, awards, third-party citations, and adoption evidence, can make the argument more persuasive.

Define the Field Accurately

A well-defined field can make it easier to identify the relevant peer group and explain the applicant’s position. The definition should reflect the applicant’s actual expertise. It should not be artificially narrowed to exclude relevant comparators or defined so broadly that meaningful comparison becomes impossible.

Separate the Two Stages

First, identify which regulatory criteria the evidence may satisfy. Then evaluate whether the complete record demonstrates sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing. A petition that satisfies three criteria may still require substantial contextual evidence at the final-merits stage.

Work With EB1A Experts Carefully

Experienced EB1A Experts can help organize evidence, evaluate the proposed field of endeavor, identify gaps, and develop a coherent final-merits presentation. No professional can guarantee approval, and advice should be based on the applicant’s actual record, not on generalized claims about a profession’s approval rate.

Build a Stronger EB1A Case 

Conclusion

There is no reliable public USCIS table proving that researchers, artists, engineers, founders, or executives have consistently high or low EB-1A approval rates. USCIS data can describe overall petition activity, but it does not establish profession-specific odds.

Professional background still matters because it influences the types of evidence available. Researchers may have citation and peer-review records; artists and athletes may have awards and public performance records; technology professionals may need to document external adoption; and founders may need to distinguish personal recognition from company success.

The strongest EB-1A petition does not rely on a profession-based statistic. It connects credible evidence to the regulatory criteria, explains the significance of each achievement in the appropriate field, and presents a confident, coherent whole-record case for sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing.

FAQs