Over the past year, many extraordinary ability applicants and startup founders, among them, have felt that U.S. immigration adjudications have become more unpredictable. That perception is not unfounded.

Using the only comparable public data available (FY 2025 Q1–Q3 versus FY 2024 Q1–Q3) and our internal case outcomes, we can see several new USCIS adjudication trends.

Let’s break them down.

Trend #1: USCIS is receiving significantly more EB-1A Petitions

The first and most measurable trend is volume.

Because USCIS has released FY 2025 data only through Q3, we compared FY 2025 Q1–Q3 with the same period in FY 2024. The difference is striking.

For EB-1A (Form I-140):

Petitions received increased by 53.6%, and pending cases at the end of Q3 increased by 96.6%. This surge is driven in large part by:

• More self-petitioners
• More senior software engineers and technical leaders seeking to move from H-1B to EB-1A
• A broader awareness of EB-1A as an alternative to long employment-based backlogs

In practical terms, a near-doubling of pending cases almost always translates into longer wait times, greater congestion at the adjudication level, and more errors at intake and adjudication.

Form I-129 work visa filings are up year over year

There’s no O-1A-specific USCIS data. The USCIS does not publish O-1A-specific receipts, approvals, and denials as a separate line item in its public quarterly datasets. In the available public tables, O petitions are typically grouped under broader Form I-129 statistics. Because the USCIS has only released FY 2025 data through Q3, we compared FY 2025 Q1–Q3 with the same period in FY 2024.

For I-129 overall (not limited to O-1A):

Across Form I-129 overall, the USCIS reported the following changes: petitions received increased by 12.1%, petitions approved increased by 9.9%, and petitions denied increased by 16.5%.

Even when we cannot isolate O-1A in the public dataset, increased filing volume across I-129s helps explain why applicants are reporting longer timelines, more friction, and a higher likelihood of RFEs and NOIDs (Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny).

Not sure whether EB-1A or O-1A is the right strategy in 2025? Get a case-specific assessment!

Trend #2: Meeting multiple Extraordinary Criteria is no longer enough

One of the most consequential shifts we have seen in 2025 is the denial of EB-1A cases under the 2-part adjudicative analysis in Kazarian precedent.

Increasingly, denials are no longer based on a failure to meet 3 of 10 EB-1A regulatory criteria. Officers may grant three, four, five, or even more criteria, yet still deny the petition at the Final Merits stage.

In these decisions, officers conclude that, despite meeting individual criteria, the applicant has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and being at the very top of the field, as required under the second prong of the EB-1A analysis articulated in Kazarian.

This explains why we have seen cases in which the same credentials support an O-1A approval but fail to persuade under EB-1A Final Merits.

In 2025, we handled matters involving highly accomplished startup founders who received O-1A approvals but faced EB-1A denials despite essentially the same professional record. This includes serial founders and senior executives whose accomplishments were objectively strong but still viewed as insufficiently “extraordinary” at the Final Merits level.

Federal courts are beginning to push back on this kind of open-ended final merits denial because it is not being applied in a clear, predictable, and consistent way

In a recent decision, Mukherji v. Miller (U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Jan. 28, 2026), the court held that the USCIS’s use of the two step framework, particularly the “final merits determination,” was unlawfully adopted and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and it vacated the denial and ordered approval on remand. This is a district court ruling, and it is not automatically binding nationwide; an appeal is possible. Still, it is an important signal that courts may not accept denials that concede multiple criteria but then rely on vague, discretionary final merits language justification without a clear and consistently applied standard.

Trend #3: Skepticism toward perceived “Profile Build-Up.”

Another pattern we are seeing is increased scrutiny of how and when evidence appears in the record. When officers see a cluster of achievements (media publications, awards, or fellowships) that appear shortly (6–12 months) before filing, some adjudicators interpret this as profile engineering rather than organic recognition.

Once that suspicion takes hold, it can affect the entire case. The officer may pay less attention to valid evidence and achievements, and the petition may be denied with the claim that the applicant does not have sustained national or international acclaim and is not truly at the top of the field.

Trend #4: More template-driven RFEs

We are also seeing a rise in RFEs and NOIDs that appear templated and sometimes contain factual and legal mistakes. Examples we have encountered include:

• RFEs addressing legal arguments that were never made,
• not discussing the client’s actual facts, evidence, and achievements in the notices,
• creating additional evidentiary requirements, which is against the law,
• misinterpreting the plain language of EB-1A regulations,
• or a critique of evidence that was mentioned in a different context.

These issues suggest that some files are not receiving a full, careful review. We also hear that the USCIS officers have started using AI to summarize petitioners’ arguments and evidence. This does not mean officers are not reviewing cases at all, but it does mean that clarity, structure, and ease of verification matter more than ever.

Trend #5: More intake rejections before adjudication even begins

Separate from adjudication, we have seen an increase in initial intake rejections, where petitions are returned without being accepted for processing. Common reasons cited include:

• allegedly missing fields that were completed or marked “N/A,”
• or claims that the filing fee amount was incorrect when it was not,
• failure to expedite processing of petitions, even though the premium processing filing fees were accepted.

These initial rejections delay the process and have become more frequent following the administration change. They add friction and uncertainty, even for well-prepared filings.

RFEs in 2025: more common

RFEs have become routine in extraordinary ability adjudications. In our internal 2025 results (as of January 1, 2026), over 30 percent of our approvals came after an RFE, a NOID, or a refile following a denial.

Out of 156 petitions filed,

• 86 were approved without an RFE, NOID, or refile,
• 17 were approved after an RFE, NOID, or refile,
• 51 still remained in progress after an RFE, NOID, or refile.

This reflects both longer processing times and a more arbitrary adjudication environment.

For clients, the primary impact is time and strategy, rather than legal fees. RFEs and NOIDs almost always extend timelines, and denials require reassessment of whether to refile or appeal. In our practice, RFE and NOID responses are prepared at no additional legal fee.

What This Means for EB-1A and O-1A Strategy Going Forward

Taken together, these trends point to one conclusion:

Success in 2025 depends less on how many criteria you can argue, and more on how convincingly your record demonstrates a sustained record of outstanding professional achievement and recognition by other top experts in the field. Effective cases now require:

• stronger third-party corroboration,
• careful selection of evidence,
• disciplined exclusion of weaker evidence to avoid accusations of exaggerated claims and frivolous filings,
• and a Final Merits narrative that is easy to verify and difficult to misinterpret.

EB-1A petitions still get approved. Overloading a case with weak or unnecessary evidence can hurt more than help. Clear, well-chosen evidence matters more than volume.