Got an EB-2 NIW RFE? How to Respond

3 hours ago

20 min read

Short answer: An EB-2 NIW RFE means the officer was not persuaded, on the current record, that you meet one or more requirements. When it challenges national importance, the officer was not persuaded that your specific proposed endeavor has broader implications beyond the people or organizations it directly serves. A strong response defines the endeavor precisely, explains how the evidence connects to that endeavor, and answers every issue the RFE raises.

Deadline first: The response must be received by the date on the notice. USCIS may allow up to 12 weeks, cannot extend that period, and treats a partial response as a request for a decision on the record. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(iv), (b)(11).

1. What an NIW RFE means

What an RFE is. A Request for Evidence (RFE) is a written notice in which USCIS tells the petitioner that the record, as it stands, does not establish eligibility, and invites additional evidence before the case is decided. When all required initial evidence has been filed but does not establish eligibility, the regulations allow USCIS to deny the petition, request more evidence, or issue a notice of intent to deny (NOID). 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(iii). An RFE is therefore not a denial. It means the officer is not yet persuaded and is giving the petitioner an opportunity to close the gap.

Under the USCIS Policy Manual, an RFE should identify the eligibility requirement that has not been established, explain why the evidence submitted is insufficient, and give examples of other evidence that may be submitted. The response period is stated in the notice; it may not exceed 12 weeks, and additional time may not be granted. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(iv). In an NIW case, the RFE questions one or more of the requirements described below.

What the response must prove. An RFE does not change the standard the petition is judged by; it asks for more evidence under that same standard. For NIW petitions evaluated under Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), the response must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as a person of exceptional ability, and that (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance it, and (3) on balance it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements. Each prong must be met, and the waiver remains discretionary. The evidence must also show that these requirements were satisfied when the petition was filed, not only by the time of the response. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1); see section 3. The separate physician NIW pathway under INA 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) and 8 CFR 204.12 has different requirements and is not covered here.

Prong one has two parts. Substantial merit is broad: under Dhanasar, it may be shown in areas such as "business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education," and an endeavor's merit "may be established without immediate or quantifiable economic impact." National importance is narrower, and it is the focus of the rest of this section.

National importance concerns the endeavor's "potential prospective impact," not the person's credentials or the importance of the field as a whole. Dhanasar explains that an undertaking may have national importance because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, "such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances," or because it has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. Commercial work is therefore not excluded; the question is whether its implications reach beyond the immediate employer or customer. Geography is not the test either: Dhanasar seeks "to avoid overemphasis on the geographic breadth of the endeavor," and the Policy Manual recognizes that "certain locally- or regionally-focused endeavors may be of national importance." Dhanasar also marks the limit: the petitioner's proposed teaching activities in that case did not rise to national importance because they would not impact the field more broadly.

USCIS restated this guidance in its Policy Manual update of January 15, 2025 (Policy Alert PA-2025-03), which applies to petitions pending or filed on or after that date. Five points from that update bear directly on an RFE response:

The field is not the endeavor. Officers "must also examine the national importance of the specific endeavor proposed by considering its potential prospective impact." The general importance of a profession is not sufficient on its own.
The endeavor is more than the occupation. The manual explains that the endeavor is "more specific than the general occupation," and that the explanation of it "should describe the specific projects and goals." A response that restates job duties does not answer this point.
Benefit to one employer is not enough. Benefits to a specific employer alone, "even an employer with a national footprint," are "not sufficiently relevant" to national importance, and a technology whose benefits run to "the company or its clients alone" may fall short. The response should show impact beyond the petitioner's own employer or customers.
Entrepreneurs receive no presumption. The manual allows flexibility in the kinds of evidence a founder can submit, but "not every entrepreneur qualifies for a national interest waiver."
STEM is a factor, not a conclusion. USCIS recognizes the importance of STEM fields and critical and emerging technologies, but a degree "in and of itself" is not a sufficient basis to find a person well positioned, and the endeavor must still be shown to have national importance.

2. Seven steps to a strong response

1. Respond to every point the RFE raises. Break the notice into numbered findings, including any challenge to EB-2 eligibility and to prongs two and three, even when the RFE is framed around national importance. Answer each finding in order and point to the exhibit that answers it. A finding left unanswered remains a ground on which the petition can be denied, and under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(11), submitting only some of the requested evidence is treated as a request for a decision on the record. Raise every argument you may need later, including any error in the RFE itself: on appeal, the AAO has treated an issue that was not argued as waived (see the reference guide in section 6).

2. Define the endeavor precisely, without changing it. State what you will do, for whom, by what method and with what expected result. You may clarify and add detail, but the endeavor must be the one that existed when the petition was filed (see section 3 below).

3. Explain how each exhibit connects to the endeavor. Background articles and statistics can establish context and substantial merit, and they remain useful when the response explains how they bear on your specific project. The most persuasive national importance evidence, however, usually concerns the endeavor itself: use or testing of your work by others, funding or institutional support for the project, citation that relies on your findings, or interest from government, industry or academic bodies.

4. Show the endeavor's broader implications. There is no single formula. For research, explain how results will be disseminated and what difference they could make in the field. For commercial or proprietary work, explain how the product, process or service would affect the field or the economy at scale, supported by a credible, internally consistent business model where economic effects are claimed.

5. Present prong two as a whole. Dhanasar looks at the person's education, skills and knowledge, record of success in related efforts, a model or plan for future activities, progress toward the endeavor, and the interest of potential customers, users, investors or other relevant parties. Show how these fit together. Citations and adoption help where they are relevant, but they are not required in every field.

6. Make the case for prong three, then check the package. Dhanasar lets USCIS weigh factors such as whether, given the person's qualifications or the endeavor, it would be impractical to secure a job offer or obtain a labor certification; whether the United States would still benefit from the person's contributions even if other qualified U.S. workers are available; and whether the national interest in those contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing labor certification. The factors must, "taken together," show that a waiver would be beneficial on balance. Address each factor the record supports, and each one the RFE raises, with evidence rather than assertion. Under the 2025 Policy Manual guidance, a national labor shortage in the occupation "would not, by itself, satisfy this third prong." Finally, confirm that every exhibit is legible and correctly dated, follow the filing rules in section 4, and decide with counsel, before the deadline, whether to respond, withdraw, or prepare a stronger new petition.

7. Put yourself in the officer's shoes. The officer reviewing your response has to weigh the full record against each finding in the RFE, so make that review easy. Open with a cover letter that takes the findings in the RFE's own order and states, for each one, why the requirement is now met and which exhibits show it. Number and tab every exhibit, include an index, and label each exhibit by what it proves, not only by what it is. Explain technical or specialized work in plain language before going into detail, and keep the terms you use for your endeavor consistent from the cover letter through every letter of support. A well-organized response does not lower the standard, but it makes it much less likely that key evidence will be missed or misread.

A caution about AI tools. AI drafting tools can save time, but they can also cite decisions that do not exist, misstate what a decision held, or present an outdated rule as current. In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), a federal court sanctioned lawyers who filed a brief citing nonexistent cases generated by ChatGPT. The same risk reaches immigration filings. In an August 25, 2026 decision, the AAO noted that translated documents bore URLs showing they came from ChatGPT.com and found their reliability had not been shown, describing ChatGPT as "an AI platform which generates unverified information." Reused wording carries its own risk: in an August 1, 2024 NIW decision, three letters filed in response to an RFE were "nearly identical," which the AAO said "detracts from their probative value." Verify every citation against the official source, confirm that each rule is still current, and make sure every letter reflects its author's own knowledge and words. The same applies to our own LexAtlas summaries: they are AI-assisted, so always read the official decision each one links to.

3. Eligibility at the time of filing, and what later evidence can do

A petitioner "must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing" and "must continue to be eligible through adjudication." 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1). A petition "shall be denied" where the evidence submitted in response to an RFE "does not establish filing eligibility at the time the benefit request was filed." 8 CFR 103.2(b)(12). See also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971), and Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998), which the AAO cites for the principle that a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. The AAO decisions cited in this article are non-precedent decisions: they illustrate how the standard has been applied but do not bind USCIS in other cases.

The distinction that matters is between new evidence of facts that already existed at filing, which is proper and is exactly what RFEs ask for (USCIS routinely requests new expert letters, for example), and later developments offered to create eligibility that was missing at filing, which cannot cure the petition. A letter written today about research completed before the priority date can be persuasive; an investment, partnership or project that began after filing cannot supply eligibility that did not exist then. The petitioner must also remain eligible while the case is pending, so material changes since filing should be addressed candidly.

Evidence in the record	How the AAO treated it	Decision
Citation percentiles calculated from a June 2025 profile, rather than the data at the November 2023 filing	Value diminished; the AAO cited 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1) and (b)(12)	July 31, 2026
A copyright registration filed after the petition	"Not probative" of eligibility at filing	July 30, 2026
Investor pledge agreements and a program invitation dated after the filing date and after the RFE	Could not establish eligibility as of filing	July 29, 2026
A peer-review email dated after filing	Not shown to reflect review performed before filing	July 28, 2026
An employment letter relying on a conference that postdated filing	Could not establish eligibility as of filing	Aug. 6, 2026

In practice: date every exhibit, have new letters describe work completed before the priority date, present metrics as of the filing date or explain how later figures measure pre-filing work, and avoid substituting a materially different endeavor to create eligibility after filing. Later work within the original endeavor should be evaluated for its relevance to eligibility at filing and continuing eligibility. If the strongest evidence arose after filing, discuss with counsel whether a new petition is the better vehicle.

4. Deadlines and procedure

Rule	What it means for you	Source
Maximum response time is 12 weeks	Follow the exact response deadline printed on your notice	8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(iv)
No extensions	"Additional time to respond … may not be granted." Plan backward from the due date	8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(iv)
Submit everything at once	A partial response is treated as a request for a decision on the record	8 CFR 103.2(b)(11)
Include the original RFE notice	Place it on top of the response package	8 CFR 103.2(b)(11) and the notice itself
Translate foreign documents	Full English translation with a translator's certification of competence and accuracy	8 CFR 103.2(b)(3)
Missing the deadline	The petition may be denied as abandoned, on the record, or both	8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)(i)

The deadline is the date USCIS must receive the response, so use a trackable courier and build in margin. If USCIS asked for specific evidence and it was not provided, the AAO generally will not consider that evidence for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988), and Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Repetition does not help later either: the AAO dismissed a motion whose brief repeated an earlier brief nearly word for word (Sept. 30, 2025).

5. Evidence in practice: three illustrations from sustained appeals

In each decision below, the AAO sustained the appeal, meaning it concluded on the record before it that the petitioner had established eligibility. These non-precedent decisions do not bind USCIS adjudicators in other cases. Precedent decisions designated under 8 CFR 103.3(c) are binding; USCIS also issues adopted decisions as policy guidance for its personnel. They illustrate how the standard has been applied, not a rule that will control your case.

Proposed endeavor	Evidence the AAO credited on national importance	Decision
Research on assistive vision technology and interpretable AI for healthcare	An RFE response describing two current research projects in detail; an expert letter stating the technology would "represent a substantial improvement over the existing state of assistive technology"; funding from a U.S. government agency	Sustained, June 24, 2025
Research on faster, more efficient generative AI image algorithms	Two recommenders explained how they leveraged the petitioner's algorithm in their own work; dissemination through journals and conference presentations	Sustained, Aug. 27, 2025
Research on optimization algorithms and machine learning theory	The record showed the work would be published and presented rather than kept as proprietary information for the employer, with potential applications in areas such as power systems and autonomous vehicles	Sustained, Feb. 5, 2026

6. Reference guide: additional issues an RFE may raise

A national importance RFE may also challenge other prongs. An RFE our office answered in 2026, issued to a self-petitioning research engineer whose degree and substantial merit USCIS accepted, also challenged prongs two and three in standard language we see in other notices. The tables below set out the issues that notice raised, alongside how the AAO has addressed similar issues in recent non-precedent decisions, which illustrate the AAO's reasoning but do not bind USCIS in other cases.

EB-2 eligibility

Issue	How the AAO has addressed it	Response point
Whether the degree, or bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience, qualifies	The AAO reviews eligibility de novo. It found a three-year foreign bachelor's degree not shown equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's (Aug. 3, 2026), faulted a record with degree certificates but no official transcripts (Aug. 5, 2026), and held that letters from colleagues and clients do not substitute for the employer letters 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires (Aug. 24, 2026)	Even if the RFE concedes eligibility, confirm the record holds official academic records, a credential evaluation and, for the five-year route, letters from current or former employers. Under 8 CFR 204.5(g)(1), other documentation relating to experience or training will be considered if the required evidence is unavailable; explain and document that unavailability

National importance: further issues

Issue	How the AAO has addressed it	Response point
Articles show the importance of the field, not the endeavor	"None of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor" (July 1, 2026); the question is how many people "the proposed endeavor will directly help" (Aug. 13, 2026)	Keep context evidence, but explain its link to the endeavor and add evidence about the endeavor itself
The benefit is limited to an employer or clients	The record did not show how the work "would extend beyond benefiting the individual organizations that receive his services" (July 1, 2026)	Explain the mechanism by which the endeavor's implications reach the wider field or economy
Methods are not shown to be innovative or distinct	A detailed explanation of "design, methodology, techniques" is "not required in the Dhanasar framework" (Apr. 30, 2025, sustained); an expert letter describing a substantial improvement over existing technology was credited (June 24, 2025, sustained)	Show what the approach improves, with independent support, rather than an exhaustive technical description
A single researcher's contribution is too limited	The AAO rejected a finding that the benefits of "a single Associate Researcher are too attenuated," noting, as in Dhanasar, that a U.S. government agency had funded some of the research (June 30, 2025, sustained)	Document institutional or government interest in the specific project
Job creation or economic effects are not shown to be substantial	Business plans were found insufficient where projections were not explained or independently supported (Aug. 3, 2026), where two economic multiplier estimates conflicted without explanation (Aug. 24, 2026), or where industry-wide savings were claimed although the plan did not show industry-wide implementation (July 29, 2026)	Use one sourced, consistent model scaled to the plan itself
A STEM degree or critical technology label is not enough	The AAO has credited the potential to advance a critical and emerging technology field together with publications, citations and expert letters (May 8, 2025, sustained)	Use STEM policy to support the evidence, not to replace it
The endeavor is described as ordinary employment	Remanded where USCIS did not consider a visiting research affiliation and a professor's letter (June 10, 2026); sustained where the endeavor had been mischaracterized as work with proprietary results (Feb. 5, 2026)	Define the endeavor as the work, and explain the role of any position in carrying it out

Prong two: well positioned

Issue	How the AAO has addressed it	Response point
Letters do not show the work has influenced the field	Letters lacked "specific and concrete examples demonstrating how the Petitioner's work has been adopted" or applied (July 28, 2026)	Where the field supports it, letters should give specific examples, backed by documents
Journal prestige is offered as proof of influence	A high journal ranking or impact factor "is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate" and does not necessarily show the petitioner's influence (July 28, 2026)	Focus on the reception of the petitioner's own work
Citation evidence	The petitioner did not specify how many citations were self-citations by him or his coauthors (July 8, 2026); by contrast, citation shown to be "high relative to others in the field" was credited (Mar. 25, 2026, sustained)	Separate self-citations and use a documented field comparison as of filing
Interest of relevant parties	Letters from prospective collaborators offered no "firm commitment"; the AAO also agreed that USCIS had imposed "novel evidentiary requirements" in part of its analysis (Aug. 11, 2026)	Document concrete commitments, funding or support where they exist
Weight of expert letters	Expert opinion letters are advisory; USCIS may give them less weight when they are not consistent with or supported by the record. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988)	Letters should be specific, from writers whose credentials are stated, and corroborated
Plan and progress	It was "uncertain" when the petitioner would complete the Ph.D. on which the plan depended (July 30, 2026)	Present one consistent plan, with documented progress and resources as of filing

Prong three: on balance

Issue	How the AAO has addressed it	Response point
No letters from interested government agencies	Such letters can help show national importance "but they are not required to establish eligibility" (July 16, 2026; May 15, 2026)	Note this, and submit such letters if they exist
The applicable standard	The AAO remanded a denial that required a showing of "clear national harm" if labor certification were required, a requirement Dhanasar does not impose (Aug. 17, 2026)	Address each Dhanasar balancing factor the record supports
STEM factors	The AAO has treated the combination of an advanced STEM degree, work in a STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness, and being well positioned as "a strong positive factor" (Apr. 28, 2025, sustained)	If relying on it, prove each element
Arguments not raised	On appeal, the AAO deemed an unargued prong-three issue waived, citing Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693, 693 n.1 (BIA 2023) (June 4, 2026)	Raise every applicable argument in the RFE response and preserve it later

When the problem is the analysis

Some remands turn on material failures in USCIS's analysis rather than on the petitioner's evidence. The AAO has remanded decisions that did not identify or analyze any specific item of evidence on national importance (June 4, 2026), that described the endeavor as genomic and cancer-screening software work when the petitioner proposed something else (May 27, 2026), or that lacked a detailed analysis of the petitioner's specific research endeavor, and that referred to the self-petitioner as the "beneficiary" and used incorrect pronouns (May 14, 2026). Another was remanded because dozens of exhibits were illegible (May 15, 2026). A remand only returns the case for a new decision. If an RFE misdescribes your endeavor or overlooks evidence already filed, say so specifically in the response, while still answering every point.

7. What our research found in 4,603 AAO decisions

LexAtlas, our research database, catalogues the EB-2 NIW decisions the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office has published on the USCIS website. The figures below come from that database. Like the decisions cited above, the underlying AAO decisions are non-precedent and bind only the parties to each case.

Denominators: the 87.9% and 82.3% figures are percentages of the appeals in which the AAO ruled on at least one Dhanasar prong (3,089 and 914). Those totals include the 64 and 35 appeals in which the AAO decided another prong without deciding prong one. The EB-2 eligibility panel of the chart overlaps with the prong panels: 248 of the 667 overall threshold failures and 35 of the 100 recent threshold failures also included a decision on at least one Dhanasar prong.

Three patterns stand out. In this dataset, the combined first prong was the Dhanasar prong most often coded unmet, and in most of those decisions (2,479 of 2,714 overall; 695 of 752 recent) no finding was coded on prongs two or three. These totals cannot be treated as counts of national-importance failures alone, because some decisions found substantial merit lacking without deciding national importance. Where the AAO found the first prong met, prong two was frequently an obstacle: in 202 of 311 decisions overall and 93 of 127 recent ones, the petitioner was found not well positioned. EB-2 eligibility was also an issue: it was coded unmet in 667 appeals overall and 100 recent appeals, including 419 and 65, respectively, in which no Dhanasar prong was decided. A remand returns the case for a new decision and is not an approval.

How we counted

Scope. 4,603 published EB-2 NIW decisions dated January 4, 2017 through August 31, 2026: 3,875 appeals, 727 motions to reopen or reconsider, and 1 certification. The chart above counts appeals only.
Unit. Each figure counts decisions, not unique petitions. Published decisions are redacted, so an appeal and a later motion in the same case cannot reliably be linked, and a single petition may appear more than once across appeals and motions.
Classification. For each decision, the AAO's finding on EB-2 eligibility and on each Dhanasar prong was labeled met, not met, not reached, or not addressed. The classifications were produced through AI-assisted review and a second-pass check against the decision text. Classification errors may remain, and the aggregate findings should be interpreted cautiously. LexAtlas codes prong one as the combined substantial-merit and national-importance requirement; it does not separately code a national-importance finding for these aggregate calculations.
Selection. Published appeal decisions are not a random sample of NIW filings. They reflect adverse decisions that affected parties chose to appeal, including petition denials and revocations. They show how the AAO reviews those contested decisions, not the odds of approval for any filing.

Adjudication context: USCIS's own I-140 data

The quarterly I-140 reports cited here do not give NIW RFE counts. They show how NIW petitions have been decided:

The approval rate is approvals divided by approvals plus denials. USCIS publishes the counts; the percentage is our calculation. Within FY2026 the quarterly rate was 42.5, 48.1 and 55.3 percent. USCIS notes that a decision in one quarter may concern a petition filed earlier and that one person can have more than one petition in the counts, so these figures describe the system, not anyone's individual odds. Sources: USCIS, Form I-140 by Fiscal Year, Quarter and Case Status, for FY2024, FY2025 and FY2026 Q3.

8. Frequently asked questions

Can I get an extension to respond to an NIW RFE? No. Under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(iv), USCIS may give up to 12 weeks and may not grant additional time.

Is an RFE on national importance a sign my case will be denied? No. It means the officer found the current record insufficient on that prong. A response that addresses the specific findings with new evidence can succeed, while repeating the original filing may leave the officer's concerns unanswered.

What issues appeared most often in the AAO decisions we reviewed? In 914 appeals decided from January 2025 through August 2026 in which the AAO ruled on at least one Dhanasar prong, the combined first prong (substantial merit and national importance) was coded unmet in 752. This is not a separate count of national-importance failures. In 93 of the 127 appeals with prong one met, prong two was coded unmet. These figures describe the indexed appeals, not all petitions.

Can I change my proposed endeavor in the RFE response? You can clarify it and add detail, but not substitute a different endeavor. Eligibility must exist at filing and continue through adjudication. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1).

Can I submit evidence created after I filed? Yes, if it documents facts that existed at filing, such as a new expert letter describing work completed before the priority date. Later developments cannot supply eligibility that was missing at filing. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(12).

Do I need a letter from a government agency? No. In recent non-precedent decisions, the AAO has said such letters can help but are not required to establish eligibility.

Does a STEM degree or a startup plan establish national importance? Not by itself. STEM credentials can weigh in your favor, and entrepreneurs may rely on flexible forms of evidence, but the endeavor's prospective impact must still be shown.

What if my response is denied? Options can include a motion to reopen or reconsider, an appeal to the AAO, or a new petition. Because evidence requested in the RFE generally will not be considered for the first time on appeal, the RFE response is the time to submit it.

9. Received an RFE? Book an RFE/NOID review and consultation

We offer two services, depending on where you are. If you have not yet responded, our RFE/NOID Review and Strategy Consultation ($500, 60 minutes) includes our Principal Attorney's review of your notice and your original filing before you meet, and the fee is credited toward the response fee if you retain us to prepare the response. If you have already drafted a response, our Response Review ($800) covers your notice, original submission, draft response and supporting documents, followed by a one-hour consultation. It is a limited-scope review, and the full fee is credited if you retain us to revise or prepare the response. Upload your notice when you book, and we will send a secure link for the remaining documents.

If you retain LexElite Law for the response, our Principal Attorney maps each finding in the RFE against the AAO decisions most relevant to your field, refines the endeavor statement where needed, directs new expert letters and evidence, and prepares the complete legal response and exhibit index. Learn more about our RFE and NOID response service and our EB-2 NIW practice. Our pre-filing evaluations, described on the evaluation page, assess qualification for EB-1 or EB-2 NIW based on your CV; they are designed for people who have not yet filed. Consultations are available in English and Farsi, in person in McLean, Virginia or New York, or by video and phone.

To research decisions on your own, use LexAtlas, our free site summarizing AAO non-precedent decisions in EB-1A and EB-2 NIW cases, in English and Persian.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration rules and adjudication trends change. USCIS statistics come from the FY2024 Q4, FY2025 Q4 and FY2026 Q3 I-140 reports; their database query dates are November 2024, October 2025 and July 2026, respectively. AAO figures come from LexElite's LexAtlas analysis of decisions published through August 31, 2026, using the method described above. AAO non-precedent decisions bind only the parties to each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney advertising.