EB-2 NIW Approval Rate — What Data Actually Shows

Understanding EB-2 NIW Approval Standards

USCIS does not publish approval rates for the EB-2 National Interest Waiver category. The agency reports total I-140 petition approvals and denials across all employment-based preference categories in its annual reports, but it does not break those figures down by subcategory — EB-2 NIW, EB-2 with labor certification, EB-1A, EB-1B, and others are aggregated together. Any specific approval rate you encounter for NIW petitions is either an estimate derived from limited sample data, a law firm's internal case count, or an unofficial figure circulating without a primary source. None of these represents the official adjudication outcome distribution, and none can predict your individual result.

The EB-2 NIW pathway allows certain foreign nationals with advanced degrees or exceptional ability to petition for a green card without going through the PERM labor certification process, provided they demonstrate that waiving the labor certification requirement serves the national interest of the United States. This waiver is governed by the three-prong test established in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Officers evaluate whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, whether the applicant is well positioned to advance the endeavor, and whether on balance it would benefit the United States to waive the labor certification requirement. Meeting all three prongs is the statutory and regulatory standard — not clearing a percentage threshold.

What USCIS Data Actually Reports

USCIS publishes two types of aggregate data: quarterly and annual statistical reports covering total I-140 petition receipts, approvals, denials, and pending counts for all employment-based preference categories combined, and processing time estimates by form type and service center. As of January 2026, USCIS reports processing times for Form I-140 on its website, but these times reflect the range from case receipt to decision across all I-140 petitions, not NIW-specific adjudications. The data does not distinguish NIW from employer-sponsored EB-2 petitions, EB-1 extraordinary ability cases, or any other I-140 category.

The most recent data available on uscis.gov shows that USCIS adjudicated over 100,000 I-140 petitions in Fiscal Year 2025, but the report does not state how many of those were NIW petitions, what the NIW-specific approval rate was, or how denials broke down by basis. Any claim that 'the EB-2 NIW approval rate is X percent' is drawing conclusions from incomplete data or extrapolating from anecdotal samples, not citing an official published figure.

Why Approval Rates Are Not Published by Subcategory

USCIS does not separate NIW adjudication outcomes from other EB-2 and EB-1 petition types in public reporting because the Form I-140 is used across multiple categories, and the agency's statistical system aggregates by form number rather than by the eligibility basis checked on the form. Internal case tracking systems distinguish petition types, but those breakdowns are not released in public-facing reports. Congressional inquiries and Freedom of Information Act requests have occasionally produced limited data snapshots, but these cover specific timeframes and do not constitute an ongoing published approval rate.

The absence of published rates is not unique to NIW petitions. USCIS does not publish approval rates for most petition subcategories — O-1A versus O-1B, L-1A versus L-1B, EB-1A versus EB-1B versus EB-1C are all aggregated in public reports. The agency reports outcomes at the form level and by broader preference category, leaving subcategory performance undisclosed.

The Three-Prong Test Governs Approval, Not Statistics

Approval or denial turns on whether the petition satisfies the Dhanasar test. Prong one asks whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance — this can be demonstrated through the endeavor's potential economic impact, advancement of a critical technology, contribution to health or education, or other measurable benefits to the United States. Prong two evaluates whether the applicant is well positioned to advance the endeavor, considering factors such as education, skills, knowledge, track record, relevant experience, and a plan or model for future activities. Prong three requires a showing that on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the labor certification requirement — this involves weighing the urgency of the endeavor, whether the applicant's contributions would have national or merely local impact, and whether the United States would lose a significant benefit if the labor certification process were required.

Officers apply these prongs to the documentary evidence submitted with the petition. The analysis is qualitative and case-specific. Two petitioners in the same field with similar credentials can receive different outcomes depending on how well the evidence addresses each prong and how the petition narrative ties the evidence to the regulatory standard. Aggregate approval rates, even if they existed, would not account for these case-level differences.

What Influences Approval Outcomes

Several factors recur in approved NIW petitions. Strong documentary evidence directly tied to the three prongs is the most consistent theme. This includes peer-reviewed publications, citation records, patents, evidence of adoption or implementation of the applicant's work, letters from independent experts explaining the significance and impact of the proposed endeavor, funding or awards recognizing the work, and a detailed description of the planned endeavor showing how it advances a nationally important goal.

Common deficiencies in denied petitions include failing to establish the national scope of the endeavor — describing work that benefits a single employer or locality without explaining the broader national impact — insufficient evidence that the applicant is well positioned to advance the endeavor, generic reference letters that do not connect the applicant's qualifications to the specific endeavor, and failure to distinguish why waiving labor certification serves the national interest rather than simply being convenient for the applicant.

The field of endeavor matters less than how the petition demonstrates the three prongs. USCIS has approved NIW petitions for applicants in STEM fields, healthcare, business, education, arts, and other areas. The standard is not field-specific — it evaluates the national importance of the particular endeavor and the applicant's role in advancing it.

Comparing EB-2 NIW to Other Green Card Routes

Bottom line: EB-2 NIW avoids the employer dependency and labor market testing required in standard EB-2 and EB-3 routes, but it carries a higher evidentiary burden than employer-sponsored cases. EB-1A avoids labor certification and allows self-petitioning like NIW, but it requires meeting the extraordinary ability standard, which is higher than the NIW threshold. The choice depends on the applicant's qualifications, the strength of the national interest argument, and whether an employer sponsorship is available or desirable.

Here's the Honest Answer

Let's be direct: searching for an approval rate presumes that meeting a statistical benchmark will predict your outcome. It will not. The EB-2 NIW standard is regulatory and qualitative — officers evaluate your specific evidence against the three prongs. A high approval rate for a sample of cases filed by a particular firm or in a particular field does not mean your petition will be approved, and a lower rate does not mean it will be denied. The outcome depends on whether your evidence demonstrates substantial merit and national importance, whether you are well positioned to advance the endeavor, and whether waiving labor certification serves the national interest. Those are fact-specific determinations, not statistical ones.

Even if USCIS published an aggregate approval rate, it would reflect the quality of petitions filed, not the inherent difficulty of the standard. A high rate could indicate that most filers meet the standard or that weak cases are rarely filed; a lower rate could indicate aggressive filing practices or a stricter adjudication environment. The figure itself would not tell you how to prepare a stronger petition or whether your case meets the prongs.

What If My Evidence Is Strong but I Still Receive an RFE?

A Request for Evidence does not mean the petition will be denied. Officers issue RFEs when the initial submission does not fully establish one or more prongs or when clarification is needed on a specific point. Common RFE topics include requesting additional evidence of the national scope or importance of the endeavor, more detailed letters explaining how the applicant's work advances the endeavor, documentation of the applicant's plan for future activities in the United States, or clarification on how the endeavor benefits the United States nationally rather than locally.

Responding effectively to an RFE requires directly addressing the deficiency identified by the officer. Generic additional letters or documents unrelated to the RFE topic do not strengthen the response. The response should explain how the new evidence satisfies the prong in question and reference the regulatory standard explicitly. RFE responses have led to approvals in cases where the initial petition was incomplete but the underlying qualifications and endeavor met the standard.

What If I Filed Under the Old Standard Before Dhanasar?

Petitions filed before December 27, 2016 — the date Matter of Dhanasar was issued — were adjudicated under the prior test established in Matter of New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The NYSDOT test required showing that the proposed employment was in an area of substantial intrinsic merit, that the benefit would be national in scope, and that the national interest would be adversely affected if labor certification were required. The Dhanasar framework replaced NYSDOT with the three-prong test.

If your petition was filed under the old standard and remains pending or if you are considering refiling a previously denied petition, the current standard applies. USCIS evaluates pending cases under the law in effect at the time of adjudication, not at the time of filing. Cases denied under NYSDOT can be refiled under Dhanasar if the applicant's situation or evidence has changed, or if the prior denial was based on deficiencies that can be addressed under the new framework.

What If My Field Has Limited Publication or Citation Opportunities?

Not every field produces peer-reviewed journal articles or measurable citation counts. Applied fields, entrepreneurial endeavors, and work in emerging areas may not have the same publication infrastructure as academic research. The Dhanasar standard does not require publications or citations — it requires evidence that the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance and that the applicant is well positioned to advance it.

Alternative evidence can include patents, licenses, media coverage of the work, letters from government agencies or industry leaders explaining the significance of the endeavor, contracts or agreements showing adoption of the applicant's work, business plans with financial projections demonstrating economic impact, or awards and recognition from relevant organizations. The key is showing how the evidence connects to the three prongs. A petition without publications can succeed if the evidence demonstrates national importance and the applicant's qualifications through other means.

How Regional or Employer-Specific Work Affects the National Interest Argument

One frequent denial reason is the failure to establish that the endeavor benefits the United States nationally, not just a specific employer or region. Work that improves processes or outcomes within a single company or locality can still have national importance if the petition explains how the work contributes to a broader national goal — for example, if the work advances a technology that will be implemented nationally, if it addresses a critical shortage affecting multiple regions, or if it serves as a model that other entities will adopt.

The petition must articulate this connection explicitly. Describing the work as important to the employer or beneficial to the local community is not sufficient. The national interest prong requires showing that the United States as a whole gains a significant benefit from waiving the labor certification requirement for this applicant.

Evidence Documentation and Presentation Standards

Evidence quality matters as much as quantity. Officers evaluate whether the evidence directly supports the claims made in the petition. Strong evidence is specific, ties to the three prongs, comes from credible independent sources, and explains the significance of the work in plain terms. Weak evidence is generic, does not connect to the national interest standard, comes only from the applicant's employer or colleagues, or assumes the reader already understands the field's terminology and importance.

Letters from independent experts carry more weight than letters from colleagues or supervisors. Independent means the letter writer has no direct employment or financial relationship with the applicant or the employer. The letter should explain what the applicant has contributed, why that contribution advances a nationally important endeavor, and how the applicant's qualifications position them to continue advancing the work. A letter that praises the applicant's general competence without tying it to the Dhanasar prongs adds little value.

Documentation of the proposed endeavor's national importance can include government reports identifying the field or problem as a national priority, data showing the scope of the issue the endeavor addresses, evidence of federal funding or policy initiatives related to the endeavor, or independent analyses projecting the economic or social impact of the work. The more specific and externally validated the evidence, the stronger the petition.

Timing and Priority Date Considerations

Filing an EB-2 NIW petition establishes your priority date as the date USCIS receives the I-140. For applicants from countries without visa number backlogs, this date allows immediate progression to adjustment of status or consular processing once the I-140 is approved. For applicants from countries with backlogs — currently India and China experience significant EB-2 retrogression — the priority date determines when a visa number becomes available, which can be years after the I-140 approval.

Filing early locks in an earlier priority date, even if adjudication takes months or if an RFE delays approval. Waiting to file until the evidence feels perfect costs time in the queue. The petition can be amended or supplemented through an RFE response if circumstances change or new evidence becomes available, but the priority date remains the original filing date. For applicants subject to retrogression, every month of delay in filing adds a month to the wait for a visa number.

What Happens After I-140 Approval

I-140 approval means USCIS has determined that you meet the EB-2 classification and that waiving the labor certification requirement serves the national interest. It does not grant a green card. The next step depends on whether you are inside or outside the United States and whether a visa number is immediately available.

If you are in the United States and a visa number is available, you file Form I-485 to adjust status to lawful permanent resident. USCIS adjudicates the I-485 based on admissibility and whether you continue to meet the criteria. If you are outside the United States or prefer consular processing, the approved I-140 moves to the National Visa Center, which processes the case and schedules an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. consulate. If you are subject to retrogression, you wait until the priority date becomes current according to the monthly Visa Bulletin published by the Department of State before filing the I-485 or proceeding with consular processing.

Schedule a consultation with the Law Offices of Peter D. Chu — 4615 Convoy St, San Diego, CA 92111 · 858-268-8823 · Mon–Fri, 8:30 AM–5:30 PM. Consultation fee: $250.