If you filed an EB-1A petition in the last two years and received a Request for Evidence, you are in very crowded company. And if you are preparing to file in 2026, understanding why RFEs are surging could be the difference between an approval and months of additional waiting.
The numbers tell a clear story. In 2022 and 2023, roughly 35% of EB-1A petitions received an RFE. By early 2025, that figure had climbed to nearly 50%, according to practitioner reports and immigration data analysts tracking USCIS adjudication patterns. Official USCIS data for Q3 of Fiscal Year 2025 placed the EB-1A approval rate at approximately 66.6%, down from significantly higher rates in prior years, with Q4 2025 dropping further to around 53%. These are not minor fluctuations. They reflect a genuine shift in how USCIS is evaluating extraordinary ability claims, and petitioners who are unaware of that shift are walking into it unprepared.
What Is Driving the Surge?
Several forces are converging at once.
Filing volumes have exploded. Between 2022 and 2024, the number of EB-1A petitions filed increased by an estimated 63%. In Q3 of Fiscal Year 2025 alone, filings were up roughly 50% year-over-year. When USCIS is processing twice the volume it handled a few years ago, adjudicators respond by issuing more RFEs to demand cleaner, more complete evidence rather than approving cases that feel thin.
USCIS consolidated its adjudication operations. All EB-1A petitions are now processed through Service Center Operations rather than being divided between the Texas and Nebraska Service Centers. This consolidation has contributed to extended processing times, now reaching approximately 22 months for regular processing as of early 2026.
The Final Merits Determination is being applied more aggressively. Under the Kazarian two-step framework, meeting three of the ten regulatory criteria is merely the entry point. At Step Two, USCIS evaluates whether the totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. Adjudicators are now applying this second step far more seriously, scrutinizing whether the evidence as a whole places the petitioner genuinely at the top of their field, not just whether a checklist has been technically satisfied.
The evidentiary bar has been raised. USCIS is no longer willing to give petitioners the benefit of the doubt on ambiguous or borderline evidence. Where officers once approved cases with a reasonable inference of extraordinary ability, they are now demanding that each criterion be independently substantiated with verifiable, external proof. Practitioners across the country report a noticeable shift: petitions that would have sailed through in 2021 or 2022 are now drawing detailed RFEs questioning the credibility, selectivity, or external impact of the submitted evidence.
Which Criteria Are Drawing the Most RFEs?
Not all criteria attract equal scrutiny. Based on current adjudication patterns, these are the most frequently questioned:
Original Contributions of Major Significance. USCIS wants to know who else in the field has adopted, cited, or built upon your contribution and what measurably changed because of it. Contributions that made a strong internal impact at your company but left no external footprint are consistently questioned.
Leading or Critical Role. Senior job titles are no longer persuasive on their own. USCIS regularly questions whether the organization itself qualifies as “distinguished” at a national or international level. A critical role in a company that cannot demonstrate its prominence in the broader industry does not satisfy the criterion, regardless of how senior the applicant’s position was.
Scholarly Articles. Adjudicators are trained to identify predatory journals and low-impact outlets. A shorter list of publications in credible, peer-reviewed journals with meaningful citation records will consistently outperform a lengthy bibliography of questionable quality.
Judging. Invitations to judge are no longer sufficient. USCIS wants documentation that the judging actually took place, including confirmation letters from organizers or formal records of completed participation.
Does an RFE Mean Your Case Is in Trouble?
Not necessarily, but it demands a serious response. Current data shows that approximately 60% of EB-1A petitions that receive an RFE ultimately result in approval, provided the response is thorough and well-documented. The RFE is not a denial. It is USCIS signaling that the existing record is insufficient and giving you a defined window to strengthen it.
What matters at the RFE stage is not volume. Adding more of the same documents already submitted will not help. A strong RFE response identifies exactly what the officer questioned, addresses each point directly with new and stronger evidence, and uses independent expert letters to close the gap between what was claimed and what the record proves.
What This Means If You Are Filing in 2026
Petitions in 2026 need to be built to a higher evidentiary standard than those filed even two years ago. The window for filing a technically complete but narratively thin petition and expecting an approval has closed.
Before filing, ask whether each criterion is supported by independently verifiable evidence rather than internal documentation or letters from close colleagues. Ask whether your original contributions are described in terms of measurable, external impact. Ask whether every exhibit directly ties to a specific regulatory criterion. If the honest answer to any of those questions is uncertain, that is where the work needs to happen before the petition is filed.
An RFE is recoverable, but the cost in time and delays is significant. In a processing environment already running past 22 months, the better investment is a petition built to withstand scrutiny before it reaches an adjudicator’s desk.
The bar has moved. Filing in 2026 means meeting it where it is, not where it was.
