The October 2026 Visa Bulletin opens fiscal year 2027 with a change that impacts most employment-based applicants: EB-2 is no longer Current for Rest of World. The category now carries a Final Action Date of January 1, 2025 and a Date for Filing of March 15, 2026. EB-3 Rest of World moved back as well, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has designated the Dates for Filing chart as the one that governs adjustment of status filings in October. 

The Visa Bulletin is the Department of State’s monthly publication showing which green card applicants can move forward that month. Because employment-based green cards are limited each year, applicants wait in a line ordered by priority date, the date that fixes each person’s place. A category being Current means there is no cutoff and any priority date can advance. Rest of World is the group of countries without their own column in the Bulletin, meaning every country except China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines.  

If you’re preparing a green card application from inside the U.S. this update is worth understanding before you file. The edition you use and the date you submit shape how your application is presented. This article walks through what changed on the form, how the new public charge rule fits in, how the timing works, the related updates to Forms I-765 and I-864, who is exempt, and how to think through the best time to file.

"New York and 21 other states are suing the Trump administration to block a new Department of Homeland Security rule that would give immigration officials wider discretion to deny green cards, visas or entry into the United States when determining whether applicants could become dependent on government aid.

The rule change, set to take effect Friday, likely would make it tougher for many immigrants to obtain green cards if they use or are deemed likely to need public benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid or housing vouchers."

Colombo & Hurd secured approval of an EB-1A extraordinary ability petition for a software engineer from India who specializes in large-scale distributed systems and advertising technology. USCIS approved the petition without issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE).

The client has spent nearly two decades in the technology sector, building deep expertise in scalable distributed systems, advertising infrastructure, and cloud modernization. His standing in the field reaches well beyond his day-to-day roles, from original technical contributions to published work, an industry award, and service judging the work of other professionals. Senior Attorney Mandy Nease led the petition, drawing together his full record of professional achievement to meet the extraordinary ability standard.

Client Profile: A Career Built at the Leading Edge of the Technology Industry

The client is a computer science professional with a Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering and around 19 years of experience in the technology sector. Early in his studies, he contributed to a research project focused on primary healthcare delivery, which gave him early experience in applying technology and computer science to practical problems.

Over nearly two decades, the client has held senior technical and leadership roles at several of the largest technology companies in the United States, where he has been recognized as a top performer for his innovative work. His expertise centers on scalable distributed systems, advertising infrastructure, and cloud modernization. Beyond his corporate roles, he has advised a non-profit organization and a technology startup. He has also published work, received an industry award, and judged the work of other professionals.

The Challenge: Presenting a Complete Record of Extraordinary Ability

EB-1A cases call for evidence of sustained acclaim, shown through a consistent record of high achievement, not a single standout moment. The client’s career fit that description well. His strength came from a long pattern of recognition across his field, not from one award or one project.

Bringing that full record together was the central task. No single piece was meant to carry the case on its own, so the petition needed to show how the parts added up to something greater.

Strategic Approach: Building the Case Around a Consistent Record of Achievement

The legal team worked with the client to assemble a petition where the sum was greater than any single part. The petition presented his standing across several of the extraordinary ability criteria, including his original contributions to scalable distributed systems and advertising technology, his published work, and his service judging the work of other professionals.

In the final merits determination, the petition drew these threads together with the wider record of his career. The final merits evidence included the industry awards he had earned, his history of high compensation in senior technical roles, his review of professional curricula, and a standing job offer that showed continued demand for his expertise. Taken together, this evidence documented a sustained pattern of recognition across nearly two decades.

The Result: EB-1A Approval Without an RFE

USCIS approved the EB-1A petition without issuing an RFE, recognizing the client’s extraordinary ability in computer science.

Why This Case Succeeded: A Record of Recognition Across Private and Public Work

The strength of the case came from the consistency of the client’s achievements across nearly two decades. His most important technical work was often performed within proprietary corporate environments, but the surrounding record showed how employers and other professionals regarded his contributions. Internal recognition, senior responsibility, high compensation, publications, awards, judging experience, and advisory work collectively documented sustained acclaim in his field.

Attorney Perspective

"This client worked at large technology companies, where there are real limits on what you can share and do outside of work. Even so, he found ways to contribute to the people and the community around his area of expertise, and he did it consistently. For anyone pursuing an EB-1A, remember that it comes down to intentional professional development."

- Mandy Nease, Senior Immigration Attorney & Director of Professional Development

A June 2026 Executive Order, 14414 (“Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience”), identifies regenerative agriculture, food security, and precision farming as federal policy priorities. 

If you work in agriculture, food safety, or agtech, it is worth understanding what that actually means for an EB-2 National Interest Waiver. 

The short version, based on what I see in practice as an immigration attorney at Colombo &Hurd: the Order can provide meaningful policy support, but it is how that policy connects to your specific proposed endeavor that matters. 

What the order does 

• It identifies regenerative agriculture, precision farming, food security, and farm modernization as federal policy priorities and directs the USDA, HHS, and EPA to act on them. 
• It gets specific: EPA review of innovative crop-protection products, new methods for evaluating cumulative chemical exposure, NIH and ARPA-H research into the health effects of agricultural chemicals, and expansion of USDA’s Regenerative Pilot Program. 
• What it does not do is establish NIW eligibility or decide your case. It gives you federal policy support. You still have to show why your specific proposed endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar.

 

How it fits the EB-2 NIW (Dhanasar) 

USCIS evaluates every EB-2 NIW under the three Dhanasar prongs. The Order is particularly useful for prong one, substantial merit and national importance, because it provides official federal policy support for the importance of the issues it addresses. 

But that is context, not the whole argument. You still have to show how YOUR specific proposed endeavor connects to the priorities the Order identifies and why that endeavor has broader significance. Simply citing the Order without making that connection does little to strengthen the petition. 

Some recent approvals  

A few real approvals we've gotten for professionals working across agriculture, each decided on its own facts: 

• Agricultural engineer in hydroponic and controlled-environment growing: 17+ years of experience, with documented improvements in water efficiency and postharvest losses. His work also reduces pest pressure and chemical inputs, closely relating to the Order's crop-protection priorities. 
• Food-safety scientist with a Ph.D. and 8+ years in USDA/FDA compliance, using industrial microwave technology to reduce foodborne pathogens and strengthen food safety. 
• Agritech/insurance professional combining satellite-based crop monitoring with tailored insurance products, closely relating to the Order's emphasis on precision agriculture and farm resilience. 
• Agricultural engineer with 18 years in sustainable farming, proposing sustainable cultivation, farmer training, and experimental fields to increase domestic production and reduce reliance on imported produce.

 

The through-line: a specific proposed endeavor, documented results, specialized expertise, and evidence of broader potential impact, not just a policy citation. 

The mistakes I see most 

• Leading with the EO and treating it as the argument. It is evidence that the federal government has prioritized certain issues, not proof that your specific endeavor has national importance. Cite it, but make the connection to your own work. 
• Citing the Order generically instead of tying your work to a specific priority it identifies, like precision agriculture, reducing reliance on conventional agricultural chemicals, or food security. A loose reference does much less than a meaningful connection. 
• Framing the case around your job title or credentials instead of the endeavor. Your title is not what determines national importance. USCIS looks at the proposed work, its potential broader impact, and, separately, whether you are well positioned to advance it. 
• Describing your “endeavor” as basically continuing your current job rather than explaining the broader problem your work is intended to address.

 

The weak vs. the strong version 

It comes down to how you frame it. 

Weak: “The government says agriculture is a priority, and I work in agriculture.” 

Stronger: “The federal government has prioritized food security and reducing reliance on conventional agricultural chemicals. My proposed work addresses those priorities in this specific way, with evidence showing its potential broader impact.” 

That second version is much closer to how a strong EB-2 NIW argument is actually built. 

Bottom line 

The Order is a helpful piece of evidence, not the argument itself. Start with the problem your proposed work addresses, whether that is food security, soil health, chemical reliance, farm resilience, or precision agriculture. Then show what you propose to do, why it could have broader impact, and why you are well positioned to do it. 

For those working in agriculture, food science, or agtech: which part of your work do you think connects most directly to the bigger national picture? 

This post provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. 

- Attorney Nicolas Vargas 

Just got my EB2-NIW denial letter and I am honestly in shock right now. Under Prong 2, the officer literally wrote that "top researchers in the field have tens of thousands of citations" as the main reason for denying my petition.

I'm working in STEM with a solid publication record, good citation count relative to my subfield, and multiple peer reviews under my belt. Tens of thousands of citations is something only department chairs, institute directors, or senior Nobel-level scientists hit in most physical science fields, so holding an early or mid-career researcher to that threshold makes zero sense.

It feels like the officer is completely conflating EB2-NIW with EB-1A or creating their own impossible standard that goes way beyond Dhanasar. Preponderance of the evidence is supposed to mean "more likely than not," not that you have to be one of the most cited living scientists on the planet.

Has anyone else gotten hit with this exact line of reasoning recently? I'm trying to figure out if it's worth filing an MTR or AAO appeal since this seems like an obvious legal error, or if I should just cut my losses, refile with premium processing, and hope I get a sane officer this time. Any insight or advice from people who successfully countered this would be huge right now.

"Indian applicants in the US employment-based immigration queue could face another setback, with the State Department warning that EB-1 green card numbers may become temporarily unavailable before September 30, the end of the US fiscal year, due to high demand.

The warning comes as Indian applicants already face severe backlogs in other employment-based categories. The EB-2 category for India remains unavailable in the September Visa Bulletin, while EB-3 continues to have a long wait."

There's a January 2026 proclamation on semiconductors that's worth understanding if you work in the field and are looking at the EB-2 NIW. Here's a straight take from my practice as an immigration attorney at Colombo & Hurd: it can support a petition, but it does less on its own than it might seem. It's useful evidence, not a game-changer. 

What the proclamation actually does 

• It names U.S. semiconductor capacity a national security matter and a national priority, in writing. 
• It notes that semiconductors run all 16 critical infrastructure sectors and sit at the core of defense systems, and it names AI and data-center chips a priority of their own. 
• It puts a 25% tariff on certain advanced chips and offers tariff relief to companies that invest in U.S. production. 
• The key thing to understand: it's a trade and national security action, not an immigration rule. It says nothing about visas and doesn't change who qualifies for anything.

 

Where it fits (and doesn't) in the NIW 

For an EB-2 NIW petition, it's relevant to one thing: national importance. You can point to a current federal document treating your field as a priority, which is genuinely helpful but it doesn't speak to your qualifications, and it doesn't decide your case. Citing it in a petition without connecting it to your specific work is one of the more common ways people weaken an otherwise decent filing. The proclamation is context. The petition still has to carry itself. 

What approvals in this space have actually looked like 

Two recent approvals for professionals from different areas of this industry give a sense of what a real record looks like.

A software and project-management specialist (10+ years across software, semiconductors, and engineering project management) whose work sped up how products move from development to release in the semiconductor and IT sectors. Approved.  

An electronics engineer (18 years validating performance, analyzing defects, and debugging hardware for server and data-center systems) who planned to build a U.S. tech-services company in high-performance computing and machine learning, plus workforce training. Approved, later got the green card. 

Different backgrounds, but neither got approved because of a proclamation. They got approved on a specific, well-documented plan tied to a national need. The policy was background, not the argument. 

Bottom line 

If you're in chip design, fabrication, manufacturing equipment, or supply-chain resilience, the proclamation is a useful piece of evidence for the national-importance prong; nothing more, nothing less. Don't lead a petition with it, and don't expect it to do heavy lifting on its own. The cases that succeed are built on the individual record. 

Question for the thread: for those of you working in semiconductors, what part of your work do you think actually connects to the national-interest picture, and has anyone here tried leaning on a policy or EO in a filing? Curious how that landed. 

This constitutes general information only and is not legal advice. 

- Attorney Rachel Slomski 

Why has the US paused the appointments?

The State Department said it launched “a global training initiative” this month to ensure that consular officers can assess visa applicants “comprehensively and consistently”.

The training will focus on the public charge rule. Under US immigration law, officers can refuse visas to applicants they believe are likely to depend mainly on government benefits for their living expenses.

If you are a professional weighing your employment-based Green Card options in 2026, this video will help you understand how the EB-2 NIW vs EB-1A pathways actually differ and which one may better fit your career, profile, and long-term goals.

On June 25, 2026, the Trump Administration formally identified regenerative agriculture, farm resilience, and food security as priorities for federal policy and action. Executive Order 14414, “Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience,” ties the country’s food security and long-term farm productivity to regenerative practices, precision farming, agricultural research, and modernized farm systems, and directs agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to act on those priorities. In plain terms, the government has said the United States needs more investment, innovation, research, and technological advancement in these areas.

For scientists, engineers, and researchers advancing this work, the Executive Order provides significant new federal policy support for the importance of their work. This includes agricultural engineers, agronomists, soil scientists, food-safety and toxicology researchers, environmental scientists, and agricultural technologists working in areas such as precision agriculture, soil health, farm modernization, chemical-exposure research, and new agricultural technologies. For professionals pursuing the EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW), these federal priorities may provide particularly strong evidence that a proposed endeavor addresses issues of national importance to the United States.

What Executive Order 14414 Does

Executive Order 14414 sets three main goals: expanding the use of precision agriculture practices and technologies, increasing federal investment in regenerative agriculture research and education, and spurring private-sector innovation in farm modernization. The stated policy objective is a healthy, abundant, and affordable food supply, along with stronger rural economies.

The order directs several agencies to act in several areas:

• Crop protection review. It directs the EPA to prioritize the review and registration of innovative crop-protection products, including products that may reduce reliance on conventional chemical tools, and evaluate certain existing pesticide uses under applicable law.
• Chemical exposure tracking. It directs the USDA, HHS, and EPA to develop methods for measuring and evaluating cumulative chemical exposure and associated human-health and environmental risks.
• Research into chemical alternatives. Through HHS, it directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) to support research into new technologies and methodologies for evaluating chemical exposure and reducing reliance on conventional agricultural chemicals.
• Expanded pilot programs. It also tells the USDA to expand its existing Regenerative Pilot Program, which is run through current conservation programs.

What the Executive Order Means for Your EB-2 NIW Case

If you work in agricultural engineering, agronomy, food safety, or related research, this order gives you a significant federal policy source that may support the national importance of your proposed endeavor.

EB-2 NIW petitions involving agricultural work are evaluated the same way as any other EB-2 NIW petition: first you must meet the EB-2 classification requirements, then explain how your proposed endeavor satisfies the National Interest Waiver standard under the three-prong test from Matter of Dhanasar. The executive order can provide valuable support for the first prong, which requires showing that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. If your proposed endeavor connects to regenerative agriculture, precision farming, food security, agricultural research, farm modernization, or farmer prosperity, you can cite the order as federal policy evidence supporting the broader importance of the work you propose to undertake.

The strongest petitions pair that policy backing with specific, individual evidence: your research, your results, your track record. Our in-depth look at the first prong of Dhanasar breaks down how that analysis works.

Connecting Agricultural Work to Federal Priorities

The order’s priorities touch a wide range of professionals: agricultural engineers and agronomists working on regenerative practices and precision farming; soil scientists and environmental scientists studying soil health, farm resilience, and sustainable production; food-safety and toxicology researchers examining chemical exposure and human-health risks associated with the food supply; and agricultural technologists and entrepreneurs developing technologies, tools, and systems that advance farm modernization and agricultural productivity.

Conclusion

Executive Order 14414 is a current, citable federal policy signal for professionals advancing regenerative agriculture, precision farming, food security, environmental health, farm modernization, or agricultural productivity and rural economies.

For agriculture professionals considering an EB-2 NIW, the order can provide meaningful policy support when their proposed endeavor connects to the priorities it identifies. The approved cases described above show how agriculture-related endeavors supported by documented outcomes, specialized expertise, and a clearly defined problem of national significance can form the basis of a successful NIW petition. If you are considering an EB-2 NIW and want to understand how your own work may fit within these requirements, fill out our questionnaire to see where you stand.

O-1 status is tied to one specific petitioner: the U.S. employer or agent who filed Form I-129 on the beneficiary’s behalf. This means an O-1 visa authorizes work only for the specific employer or agent named in the approved petition, in the capacity that petition describes. To work for a new employer or in a different capacity, the beneficiary must first transfer their O-1 visa. An O-1 visa can only be transferred to a new employer through a new petition, not an amendment or transfer of the existing one.  

When an O-1 professional changes employers, the new employer or agent files a new petition rather than taking over the existing one. This works differently from the H-1B, where a worker can begin the new job as soon as the new employer files. Under the O-1, the new role begins once USCIS approves the petition. Planning around this timing early keeps your status continuous during the transfer process. 

How an O-1 Visa Transfers to a New Employer

Your O-1 status connects to one specific petitioner and itinerary, which is the planned schedule of work or events that the government approved. Each O-1 approval belongs to the petitioner who filed it and describes a specific plan of work. So, a change of employer begins with filing a new  Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the same form used for your first O-1 case, but a new filing with its own timeline. 

Under the H-1B, a feature called portability authorizes the beneficiary to start the new job as soon as the employer files. Under the O-1, USCIS authorizes the new job only once it approves the petition. There is no portability feature for O-1. 

The O-1 Visa Transfer Process, Step by Step

The O-1 visa transfer process follows the same path as a first-time O-1 case, with a few points to plan for. 

First, your new employer or agent prepares and files the I-129 petition. They describe the job, your field, and the planned dates of work. The petition must include a contract between the petitioner and the beneficiary, an itinerary outlining the beneficiary’s work or performance plans in the United States with specific dates, and evidence establishing O-1 eligibility. 

Second, they obtain a consultation letter. A consultation letter is a written opinion from a peer group, union, or expert organization in your field that comments on your work and the role. The new employer usually requests a fresh letter that fits the new position. 

Third, they file the new Form I-129 with USCIS. The employer can also request premium processing, which is a paid service that gives a faster decision. Timelines and fees change over time, so verify the current numbers with USCIS before filing. 

Fourth, USCIS reviews the petition and issues a decision. You begin working for the new employer once USCIS approves it. Because your options depend on your status and timing, an immigration attorney can confirm what is the sequence that best fits your situation.  

Timing Your Move to Keep Your Status Continuous

Continuous status means moving from one authorized period to the next without a break in between, which supports future filings and international travel. A common approach is to have the new employer file the new petition while you still remain in valid status with your current employer. Once USCIS approves the new case, you move to the new role without a break in your lawful status. 

Timing also guides what happens while a decision is pending. If you remain in valid O-1 status with your current employer when the decision arrives, you keep that status until it expires. If your prior role has already ended, your options depend on the time remaining on your approval, which is one reason many professionals confirm the sequence with an attorney before they resign. 

O-1 holders may also receive a discretionary grace period of up to 60 consecutive calendar days after their employment ends, or until the end of their authorized stay, whichever is shorter. This period may allow them to remain in the United States while a new employer or agent files an O-1 petition, while they seek a change to another immigration status, or while they prepare to depart. The grace period is granted on a case by case basis and does not provide work authorization by itself. For that reason, many professionals plan around the timing of a new petition and treat the grace period as a limited backup rather than a guaranteed transition period. 

Plan the sequence before you give notice: In an O-1 visa transfer, planning the timing and order of steps is essential to keep your status continuous.

Changing Employers vs. Adjusting Work Under an Agent

Not every O-1 professional works for a single employer. Some work through a U.S. agent. An agent is a person or company that files the O-1 case and arranges work with several employers or clients on your behalf. This setup is common in acting, music, athletics, and consulting, where one single petition can cover several engagements. 

When you work through an agent, adjusting your work can differ from changing employers. If the agent stays the same and only your list of clients changes, an update to the existing case may be enough. However, adding work that was not part of your approved itinerary can call for an amended or new petition. Moving from an employer-sponsored O-1 to an agent-based O-1 is a larger step and involves a new petition built around the agent arrangement. Because the right path depends on the specific details of your situation, an attorney can help you identify which one applies to your plans.  

If you work in fintech and you're thinking about moving to the U.S., there's a recent development worth knowing about. The May 2026 Executive Order (EO 14405) integrates fintech and digital assets into traditional finance, and it's been coming up a lot in EB-2 NIW discussions. The question people keep asking is how much the order actually helps an EB-2 NIW case. From what I see in practice as an immigration attorney at Colombo & Hurd, it sets a favorable tone by showing that the federal government recognizes fintech innovation as a national priority, creating a stronger opportunity for a broader range of professionals in the field to pursue an NIW. 

What the order does 

• It makes integrating digital assets and financial technology into traditional finance a stated federal priority: integration, cutting the fragmented regulation that hurts smaller fintech firms, and easing rules to encourage competition and access. 
• It gives a broader range of fintech professionals a clearer federal policy basis for explaining why their proposed work matters nationally. 
• It's useful where your work actually connects to its priorities: digital asset integration, payment-system modernization, compliance, fraud prevention, cybersecurity. Themes about "access" and "competition" are background, not proof.

 

How it fits the EB-2 NIW 

Executive Order 14405 creates a stronger policy foundation for fintech professionals whose work advances innovation across the financial system. Professionals developing new payment technologies, integrating digital assets into traditional finance, expanding access to financial services, strengthening compliance systems, or improving the security and reliability of financial platforms may be well positioned to pursue an EB-2 NIW when their proposed work contributes to these broader federal priorities. 

What actually gets these approved  

Two recent approvals for fintech professionals: 

• A cybersecurity consultant on H-1B (US master's in CS, bachelor's in computer engineering) proposing to help U.S. small and mid-sized businesses reduce cyber risk. The record carried it: ~50% deployment-time reduction, 80% cut in user update time, a 72% technical-debt reduction across 50+ apps, plus a plan to train client companies to become self-sufficient. Approved in 45 days on Premium Processing, no RFE. 
• A data scientist using machine learning to strengthen fraud detection across financial systems. The case aligned with the Executive Order’s broader emphasis on financial security and responsible technological innovation. USCIS approved the petition in one month and ten days without issuing an RFE.

  

Notice what neither of those did: lead with the order. They led with a national problem and documented outcomes. 

Bottom line 

Executive Order 14405 strengthens the policy foundation for fintech professionals whose work advances financial-system security, fraud prevention, access, payment modernization, digital asset integration, or compliance. A strong petition connects those federal priorities to a clearly defined problem, a specific proposed endeavor, and measurable evidence showing the professional is well positioned to advance the work in the United States. 

Question for the thread: Question for the thread: If you work in fintech, what first made you consider the EB-2 NIW, or is the process still new to you? If you had not heard about this Executive Order before, does it change how you are thinking about your options? 

This constitutes general information only and is not legal advice. 

- Attorney Aaron Labreque

Many F-1 students who want to continue working long-term look to the H-1B visa as the next step. But the H-1B is capped each year and awarded through a random lottery, so timely filing does not guarantee a spot. As your OPT expiration date approaches, you may find yourself asking an important question: What happens if I am not selected in the H-1B lottery?

For some highly accomplished F-1 students and recent graduates, the O-1 offers another path forward. 

Colombo & Hurd secured approval of an EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) petition for an IT and cybersecurity professional from Honduras. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the petition after a successful response to a Request for Evidence (RFE). 

Unlike large corporations, many small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) in the U.S. lack dedicated security teams and substantial financial reserves, leaving them vulnerable to phishing, ransomware, data theft, and prolonged business disruptions. The common but risky belief that they are too small to be targeted makes the problem worse, as attackers often view SMBs as easy entry points. When a breach or major disruption occurs, recovery costs, downtime, and lost customer trust can be severe enough to force a business to close. Our client’s proposed work aims to help these small businesses protect their data and update the way they use technology.   

Colombo & Hurd Senior Immigration Attorney Vivian Daher led the initial filing, and Senior Immigration Attorney Jason Qiu directed the RFE response.   

Check out the full case study to learn more about the approval process:

• Client Profile: Bringing Big-Company Protection to Small Businesses
• The Challenge: Showing the Broader Importance of Small-Business Cybersecurity
• Strategic Approach: Linking His Work to National Goals
• The Result: EB-2 NIW Approved

Attorney Perspective: “He brought an exceptional combination of technical expertise, leadership experience, and a well-defined vision for helping U.S. small businesses strengthen their technology infrastructure. Throughout the process, he was highly engaged, responsive, and committed to presenting a comprehensive case. His willingness to provide detailed information and collaborate closely made it possible to build a strong petition that accurately reflected both his accomplishments and the national importance of his proposed endeavor.” -Vivian Daher, Senior Attorney

TheEB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) is a U.S. green card pathway for highly skilled professionals whose work benefits the United States on a national level. The EB-2 NIW self-petition process allows you to apply for a green card without needing a U.S. employer sponsor or labor certification. 

This visa is designed for individuals with advanced degrees or exceptional ability in their field. If your contributions help address critical challenges or create significant opportunities that benefit the U.S., you may qualify.