A Historic Reversal: EB-1A Approval Rate Surpasses NIW for the First Time
FY2024 data shows the EB-1A approval rate reaching 60.65%, surpassing NIW's 43% for the first time. What caused this historic reversal? How should it affect applicants' strategic choices?
A Historic Reversal: EB-1A Approval Rate Surpasses NIW for the First Time #
Key Takeaways
- FY2024 data reveals a historic reversal: the EB-1A approval rate reached approximately 60.65%, while the NIW approval rate dropped to approximately 43% (approvals/receipts)
- This is the first time on public record that the EB-1A approval rate has exceeded NIW
- The primary cause of the NIW approval rate decline is a surge in filing volume leading to tightened adjudication and backlog
- The EB-1A approval rate has remained relatively stable because the category's inherently high threshold serves as a "self-screening" mechanism
- The implication for applicants: if you qualify for both categories, prioritizing or simultaneously filing EB-1A may be the better strategy
For the past decade in the green card application space, one widely accepted "common wisdom" has been: NIW is easier to get approved than EB-1A. NIW has a lower threshold and does not require proving "extraordinary ability" -- just arguing national interest -- so its approval rate has always been higher than EB-1A.
But FY2024 data has shattered this assumption. According to USCIS public data, the EB-1A approval rate reached approximately 60.65%, while the NIW approval rate dropped to approximately 43%. This is a landmark reversal that deserves serious analysis by anyone considering or preparing applications in either category.
I. FY2024 Data in Detail #
NIW Data #
| Metric | FY2024 Data |
|---|---|
| Petitions received | 63,549 |
| Approvals | 27,526 |
| Denials | 11,256 |
| Pending | 44,093 |
| Approval rate (approvals/receipts) | ~43.3% |
| Denial rate (denials/receipts) | ~17.7% |
| Completion rate | ~61% |
EB-1A Data #
| Metric | FY2024 Estimate |
|---|---|
| Approval rate | ~60.65% |
| Overall trend | Relatively stable |
Historical Approval Rate Comparison #
| Fiscal Year | NIW Approval Rate | EB-1A Approval Rate | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2021 | ~92% | ~56% | NIW higher by 36 points |
| FY2022 | ~96% | ~55% | NIW higher by 41 points |
| FY2023 | ~80% | ~58% | NIW higher by 22 points |
| FY2024 | ~43% | ~61% | EB-1A surpasses by 18 points |
Note on data methodology: The NIW approval rate above uses the "approvals/receipts" metric (43%). Using the "approvals/completions" metric (approvals + denials), the NIW rate would be approximately 71% (27,526/38,782). Both metrics have their merits, but given that a significant portion of pending cases will ultimately be denied, "approvals/receipts" better reflects the overall probability applicants face. Regardless of which metric is used, the trend of EB-1A surpassing NIW is consistent.
II. Why Did This Reversal Occur? #
This historic reversal was not caused by a single factor but rather the convergence of multiple trends.
Reason One: Explosive Growth in NIW Filing Volume #
The rapid surge in NIW filings in recent years is the most direct cause of the approval rate decline.
| Impact | Specific Manifestation |
|---|---|
| Intensified competition | More petitions competing for limited capacity |
| Quality dilution | Many "try my luck" applications lowering the overall quality |
| Tightened standards | USCIS forced to raise standards to control approval volume |
| Severe backlog | Processing capacity cannot keep pace with filing growth |
Why has NIW filing volume surged? Reasons include:
- Abundant "success story" sharing on social media has lowered information barriers
- An increasing number of DIY applicants (without attorneys) attempting NIW
- Growing H-1B lottery uncertainty pushing more people toward NIW as an alternative
- Post-COVID remote work adoption prompting more people to consider immigration options
Reason Two: EB-1A's "Self-Screening" Effect #
Unlike NIW, EB-1A's high threshold itself serves as a natural filter.
EB-1A's "self-screening" mechanism:
EB-1A requires meeting at least three of ten criteria (or a one-time achievement), a threshold that causes most unqualified applicants to self-select out. As a result:
- Those who file EB-1A have typically already undergone preliminary attorney evaluation confirming a reasonably strong case
- The applicant pool is smaller with overall higher quality
- USCIS does not need to drastically raise standards to control approval volume
- Adjudicators face higher average case quality, making approvals less resistant
Reason Three: "Implicit Tightening" of NIW Adjudication Standards #
Although the Dhanasar framework itself has not changed, USCIS adjudicators have been raising NIW requirements in practice:
- Stricter demands for "national importance" argumentation -- simply stating "my research benefits the United States" is no longer sufficient
- More careful scrutiny of recommendation letters -- generic praise is no longer accepted
- Higher evidentiary demands for "well positioned" -- more objective evidence is required
- Stricter feasibility assessments of "proposed endeavor" -- particularly for early-career researchers
Reason Four: Relative Stability of EB-1A Adjudication #
EB-1A's ten criteria provide a relatively objective evaluation framework. Compared to NIW, EB-1A adjudication is more "mechanical" -- adjudicators primarily assess whether you meet three or more criteria and whether you reach the "extraordinary" standard in the final merits determination. This framework gives adjudicators relatively less discretion, resulting in more stable adjudication standards.
III. What Does This Mean for Applicants? #
Impact One: Reassess Your Filing Strategy #
If you qualify for both NIW and EB-1A, FY2024 data strongly suggests reconsidering your filing strategy.
| Scenario | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|
| Clearly meet 3+ EB-1A criteria | Prioritize EB-1A, or file simultaneously with NIW |
| Marginally meet 3 EB-1A criteria | File both EB-1A and NIW simultaneously (dual-track strategy) |
| Meet only 1-2 EB-1A criteria | File NIW first, while accumulating EB-1A evidence |
| Do not meet EB-1A criteria at all | Focus on NIW, but with higher-quality material preparation |
Impact Two: Higher Standards for Material Preparation #
Regardless of which category you choose, the 43% NIW approval rate and 61% EB-1A approval rate both tell us: this is not an era where "good enough" suffices. Every petition needs:
- More thorough evidence accumulation
- More precise narrative strategy
- Higher quality recommendation letters
- Stronger national interest/extraordinary ability argumentation
Do not be misled by the conclusion that "EB-1A is easier." EB-1A having a higher approval rate than NIW does not mean EB-1A is "easier" -- it only means the applicant pool filing EB-1A is overall stronger. If your qualifications are insufficient, forcing an EB-1A filing will not improve your success rate and may result in a denial record that affects future applications. The correct understanding is: if your credentials meet the EB-1A standard, your probability of passing through EB-1A may be higher than through NIW.
Impact Three: The Value of Dual-Track Strategy Is Highlighted #
In the current environment, the dual-track strategy of filing both NIW and EB-1A simultaneously is more valuable than ever.
Advantages of the dual-track strategy:
- Risk diversification: The two categories are adjudicated independently; an RFE or denial in one does not affect the other
- Time hedging: Both petitions are processed simultaneously; whichever is approved first can be used
- Evidence sharing: Core evidence (papers, citations, recommendation letters) for both petitions largely overlaps
- Priority date sharing: The earliest filing date applies
- Signaling effect: Filing both categories simultaneously signals "strong candidate" to the adjudicator
Cost analysis of dual-track strategy:
| Fee Item | NIW Only | EB-1A Only | Dual Track |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-140 filing fee | $715 | $715 | $1,430 |
| Premium Processing (optional) | $2,965 | $2,965 | $5,610 |
| Attorney fees (additional) | -- | -- | Increase of 30-50% |
| Material preparation time | -- | -- | Increase of ~20% (evidence sharing) |
IV. EB-1A vs NIW: In-Depth Comparison #
Application Threshold #
| Dimension | NIW | EB-1A |
|---|---|---|
| Degree requirement | Master's or equivalent | No hard requirement |
| Core standard | Dhanasar three-prong test | Meet 3+ of ten criteria |
| Evidence focus | National interest argumentation | Proving extraordinary achievements |
| Flexibility | Higher (narrative-driven) | Lower (criteria-driven) |
| Adjudicator discretion | Greater | Less |
Evidence Comparison #
| Evidence Type | Value for NIW | Value for EB-1A |
|---|---|---|
| Publications | Supports "well positioned" | Directly meets criterion 6 |
| Citations | Indirect evidence | Supports "original contributions" criterion |
| Peer review experience | Indirect evidence | Directly meets criterion 4 |
| Awards | Bonus | Directly meets criterion 1 |
| Media coverage | Supports "national importance" | Directly meets criterion 3 |
| Recommendation letters | Core evidence | Supporting evidence |
| High salary | Generally not relevant | Directly meets criterion 9 |
| Association membership | Indirect evidence | Directly meets criterion 2 |
Process Comparison #
| Element | NIW | EB-1A |
|---|---|---|
| I-140 processing | 12-18 months (regular) / 45 days (premium) | Similar |
| Premium Processing | Available | Available |
| Employer requirement | Waived | Waived |
| Visa category | EB-2 | EB-1 |
| China-born backlog | Longer | Shorter |
| India-born backlog | Very long | Longer |
Critical visa backlog difference: For applicants born in mainland China, the gap between EB-1 and EB-2 backlogs can span several years. If backlog timing is your primary concern, EB-1A (EB-1 category) has a significant advantage over NIW (EB-2 category). This is an important reason many China-born applicants prioritize EB-1A.
V. Optimal Strategies by Background #
Academic Researchers (PhD/Postdoc) #
If you have:
- 10+ papers and 100+ citations: Strongly recommend dual track (EB-1A + NIW)
- 5-10 papers and 50-100 citations: Evaluate dual track based on other factors
- Fewer than 5 papers: Typically focus on NIW first while accumulating EB-1A evidence
Three easiest EB-1A criteria for researchers:
- Scholarly article publication (criterion 6) -- automatically met by most researchers
- Judging contributions (criterion 4) -- met with peer review experience
- Original contributions (criterion 5) -- proven through citations and recommendation letters
Industry Researchers/Engineers #
If you have:
- Patents + industry awards + high salary: EB-1A is suitable
- Patents + papers but no outstanding awards: Dual-track strategy
- Primarily relying on work outputs rather than academic publications: Prioritize NIW
Early-Career Researchers #
For recent PhD graduates or early-stage postdocs:
- Current accumulation may be insufficient to support EB-1A
- Consider filing NIW first while spending 1-2 years building EB-1A evidence
- Focus areas: peer review experience, citation growth, academic awards
VI. Future Trend Predictions #
Based on FY2024 data and current trends, here are our predictions for FY2025 and beyond:
| Prediction | Basis | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| NIW approval rate continues declining | Sustained filing growth + tightened standards | High |
| EB-1A approval rate remains relatively stable | Self-screening mechanism + standardized evaluation | Medium-high |
| EB-1A > NIW pattern persists | Structural factors unchanged | High |
| Policies may tighten further | Possible political environment changes | Medium |
| Dual-track strategy becomes mainstream | Rational choice for risk diversification | High |
Long-term perspective: The current approval rate landscape reflects the "maturation" of the NIW market -- from a "blue ocean" in prior years (high approval rates, low competition) to a "red ocean" (low approval rates, high competition). EB-1A, due to its inherently high threshold, has maintained a healthier approval rate. Applicants need to adjust their mindset, treating NIW as a serious "examination" requiring thorough preparation, not a procedural formality.
Frequently Asked Questions #
Does EB-1A having a higher approval rate than NIW mean EB-1A is easier to apply for?
No. The higher EB-1A approval rate reflects differences in applicant pools, not differences in application difficulty. EB-1A's higher threshold (requiring three or more of ten criteria) means most applicants with insufficient credentials do not file, creating a "self-screening" effect. Only when you truly possess the level of achievement required for EB-1A does it become the "easier" choice. For the same qualified applicant, the probability of passing through EB-1A may indeed be higher than NIW in the current environment.
If I file both EB-1A and NIW, will a denial in one affect the other?
The two petitions are adjudicated completely independently; a denial in one does not directly affect the other's outcome. However, consistency is important: statements about your background, achievements, and goals in both petitions should be consistent. If the two applications contain contradictory information, the adjudicator may notice and question both cases. Therefore, while the narrative angles differ (NIW focuses on national interest, EB-1A on extraordinary achievement), core facts should be entirely consistent.
I have already filed NIW. Can I still file EB-1A?
Absolutely. You can file a new I-140 petition at any time. If your NIW is already being adjudicated, additionally filing EB-1A will not affect NIW processing. The two petitions are processed independently. Moreover, if EB-1A is approved first, you can leverage the EB-1 category's typically shorter visa backlog to accelerate the overall process. Evaluate whether your current achievements sufficiently support EB-1A, and if so, file as soon as possible.
Will the NIW approval rate continue to decline?
Based on current trends, the FY2025 NIW approval rate will very likely continue declining. Driving factors include: sustained filing volume growth, expected further tightening of adjudication standards, and policy environment uncertainty. USCIS has not publicly indicated any plans to relax NIW adjudication standards. For applicants, this means material preparation standards need to keep rising -- the "good enough" mindset is no longer appropriate for the current environment.
How significant is EB-1A's backlog advantage?
For applicants born in mainland China, the EB-1 category backlog is typically 2-4 years shorter than EB-2. As of mid-2024, the EB-1 China backlog is approximately 1-2 years, while EB-2 China is approximately 3-5 years. This means even if EB-1A and NIW I-140 petitions are approved simultaneously, obtaining a green card through EB-1A could be 2-3 years faster than through NIW. For time-sensitive applicants (such as those with expiring status or family planning needs), the backlog advantage may be the decisive factor in choosing EB-1A.
Conclusion #
The FY2024 EB-1A approval rate surpassing NIW for the first time is a landmark event in the immigration application landscape. It not only overturns the traditional perception that "NIW is easier than EB-1A" but also provides new data to support applicant strategy decisions.
Core takeaways:
- View the data rationally: Approval rates reflect group-level probabilities, not individual outcomes. You need to evaluate your own competitiveness within each category
- Dual-track strategy is superior: If conditions permit, filing both offers the lowest risk and highest return
- Material quality is paramount: Regardless of the category, high-quality application materials are the foundation of success
- Backlog timing matters: For China-born applicants, EB-1's backlog advantage should not be overlooked
- The trend may persist: Prepare for continued intensification of NIW competition
If you are uncertain about choosing between NIW and EB-1A, or need a professional assessment of your filing strategy, feel free to contact GloryAbroad.