Hi everyone,

I’m looking for recent experiences from EB-1 applicants with a pending I-485 who are maintaining H-1B for employment but have used Advance Parole (AP) for international travel.

My main reason for considering AP is to avoid H-1B visa stamping in India. With the current uncertainty/delays around H-1B stamping, AP seems like a useful option for travel.

For example, if I have a valid H-1B approval (I-797) and continue working for my H-1B employer, but do not have a valid H-1B visa stamp in my passport, can I travel to India and return to the U.S. using my approved AP instead of getting a new H-1B stamp?
Has anyone here actually done this recently?

I would especially like to hear from people who:

Had a valid H-1B approval but an expired/no valid H-1B visa stamp;
Traveled to India;
Returned to the U.S. using AP;
Continued working for the same H-1B employer afterward.

How was your experience at the port of entry? Any secondary inspection or questions? Did using AP create any issues later with your H-1B extension/status?

Trying to understand whether AP is a practical backup for H-1B holders specifically to avoid the visa-stamping uncertainty in India.

Thanks!

Supplied all the USCIS quarterly data as well as inventory from Nov'25 to May'26 to multi model AI (Opus + ChatGPT)

FY27 FB→EB spillover	Late-FY27 FAD	Dynamic DFF
40K	Jul–Aug 2023	Dec 2023–Apr 2024
50K	Aug–Sep 2023	Apr–Jun 2024
60K	Sep–Oct 2023	May–Aug 2024
70K	Oct–Nov 2023	Jun–Sep 2024
80K	Nov–Dec 2023	Jul–Nov 2024
80K + favorable India fall-across	Dec 2023 / early 2024	late 2024–early 2025

Context: EB1A (India) I140 PD Apr 19,2023
Filed for 485+765+131 Jan 2026.
Biometrics : Jan 2026

No EAD/AP yet

FTA1 on 485 in Mar 2026 (no movement since then)

If predictions turn out to be current and spillovers bring the FAD to April by early next year, would an already filed 485 help move things faster?
At this point I don’t expect movement on EAD/AP because normal processing times are over 10 months as per USCIS.

Can anyone having experience with a similar situation, provide an insight into how it went for you?

https://preview.redd.it/lc2oj39cayjh1.png?width=614&format=png&auto=webp&s=9b4539aa65e39d9895bf0d403c92918ef59f0bcb

Hi everyone, I’m Carmiann Cespedes, a U.S. immigration attorney, and I’ll be answering questions today from 12 PM to 4 PM ET.

One of the hardest parts of EB-1A is understanding the difference between having an impressive career and being able to document extraordinary ability under the immigration standard.

I’m happy to answer questions about evidence, including awards, publications, judging, original contributions, critical roles, compensation, media coverage, industry recognition, and more.

I’m also interested in questions from Latin American professionals, founders, product leaders, and creatives considering EB-1A.

AMA from 12 PM to 4 PM ET today.

Please note: Any information shared here is for general educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney client relationship. Your situation may require fact specific guidance. For personalized legal advice, please consult an immigration attorney directly.

Spend enough time in this sub, Team Blind or any immigration forum honestly and you will see the same few myths repeated as fact over and over. Figured it's worth addressing a few of them directly, since they end up scaring off people who'd actually have a solid shot, and giving false confidence to people who don't.

Myth #1: EB-1A is basically a Nobel Prize / Einstein visa

This one gets repeated so often it's basically folklore at this point. In reality, USCIS doesn't require you to be a global superstar the standard is "extraordinary ability," which legally means you're among a small percentage at the very top of your field, not that you need a Nobel or a Turing Award. Plenty of approved profiles are engineers, researchers, and professionals with strong but not celebrity-level records who met 3+ of the 10 criteria and built a coherent case around them.

Myth #2: You need a PhD to qualify

Nowhere in the criteria does it say anything about degrees. What matters is evidence of extraordinary ability in your field original contributions, judging, leadership roles, media coverage, high salary, etc. Plenty of approved EB-1A cases have no PhD attached at all. A strong bachelor's-level profile with real impact will beat a mediocre PhD profile every time.

Myth #3: Getting an RFE means you're getting denied

This one causes so much unnecessary panic. An RFE is USCIS asking for more evidence or clarification it is not a rejection. Plenty of RFE cases go on to get approved once the response addresses USCIS's specific concerns properly. It's stressful, sure, but it's a normal part of the process for a meaningful chunk of cases, not a red flag that your petition is doomed.

So drop a comment and share your thoughts on these Myths:

• Which criterion took you the longest to actually build evidence for?
• Which one did you think would be easy but turned out to be a nightmare?
• Any criterion you assumed you'd need but ended up dropping from your petition entirely?

Thanks for any help in advance !!

whether any one has access to any of the external market compensation surveys that i can use to establish salary ranges for my title and location. USCIS does not like crowd sourced databases like levels.fyi. BLS data is base only while my total remuneration is much higher when I consider my equity and RSU.

Databases which I heard being better than others - Radford/Aon, Mercer, WTW, or a similar third-party compensation database.

Open to suggestions

Link: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/eb\_inventory\_may\_2026\_v1.0.xlsx

EB1 India Pending 485's: 22,052

EB1 China Pending 485's: 6722

EB1 ROW Pending 485's: 30410

EB2 India Pending: 28179 EB2 China Pending: 4891 EB2 ROW Pending: 38128

Cc: u/GreenCardClock

Not a Lawyer.

Note: This estimate is based on what data and approximations I can make today. These things can change based on I140 adjudication patterns and spillovers etc.

As I am getting lot of messages and comments regaridng PD moving to 2026. Here is what I am considering to estimate the cumulative number of visa numbers that may need to be absorbed before EB-1 India can sustainably move into the 2026 priority-date population.

This is necessarily an estimate because USCIS and DOS do not publish every component needed to calculate the queue precisely. However, I think the available inventory data, estimated new-principal population, pending I-140 pipeline, and continuing annual demand give us a reasonable framework.

1. Approximately 20K pending I-485s at the end of FY2026

I am estimating that approximately 20K EB-1 India I-485 applicants may remain pending through roughly the December 1, 2023 priority-date range at the end of FY2026.

This is not simply the May 6, 2026 inventory number carried forward unchanged.

My approximately 20K estimate already attempts to account for activity between the May inventory snapshot and the end of FY2026, including:

* I-485 approvals occurring from May through the remainder of the fiscal year

* Visa numbers consumed during that period

* Additional older-priority-date demand entering through porting during this period

* The fact that the Final Action Date can move or retrogress depending on actual visa usage

Therefore, I am using approximately 20K as an estimated FY2026-end starting backlog, rather than treating the May inventory as static.

This 20K is already a count of I-485 applicants. It includes principals and derivatives, so it should not be multiplied again by a dependent assumption.

Starting demand at the end of FY2026:

Approximately 20K visa numbers.

2. Approximately 15K new principals between late 2023 and the 2026 population

My estimate is that there are approximately 15K new EB-1 India principals in the priority-date population that must be worked through before the Final Action Date can sustainably reach the 2026 population.

This produces very different visa demand depending on the number of derivatives.

Scenario 1: 1 dependent per principal

15K principals x 2 visa numbers = approximately 30K visas.

Adding the approximately 20K pending FY2026-end inventory:

20K + 30K = approximately 50K visa numbers.

Scenario 2: 2 dependents per principal

15K principals x 3 visa numbers = approximately 45K visas.

Adding the approximately 20K pending FY2026-end inventory:

20K + 45K = approximately 65K visa numbers.

So before considering currently pending I-140 petitions or future annual demand, I get a base requirement of approximately:

50K visas with 1 dependent per principal.

65K visas with 2 dependents per principal.

3. Approximately 9K EB-1 petitions are still pending adjudication

There is another source of demand that is not fully visible yet.

Approximately 9K EB-1 petitions are still pending adjudication, and some of these could have priority dates between 2023 and 2026.

Using an approximate 45% approval assumption:

9K x 45% = approximately 4,050 eventual approvals.

I would not simply add all 4,050 to the 15K estimate.

Some of these pending petitions could be cases using older retained priority dates, while others could represent genuinely new priority dates between 2023 and 2026.

Only the genuinely new-PD portion would increase the estimated 15K new-principal population.

For example, if 25% to 75% of the approximately 4,050 expected approvals represent genuinely new priority dates, the additional new-principal population would be approximately:

25% new PD: approximately 1,000 additional principals.

50% new PD: approximately 2,000 additional principals.

75% new PD: approximately 3,000 additional principals.

Using the 50% midpoint only as an illustration, approximately 2K additional new principals would increase the 15K estimate to approximately 17K principals.

With 1 dependent per principal:

17K x 2 = approximately 34K visas.

20K existing inventory + 34K = approximately 54K visa numbers.

With 2 dependents per principal:

17K x 3 = approximately 51K visas.

20K existing inventory + 51K = approximately 71K visa numbers.

Therefore, once the currently pending I-140 pipeline is considered, I think the initial 50K to 65K estimate can reasonably move higher.

A midpoint illustration gives approximately:

54K visas with 1 dependent per principal.

71K visas with 2 dependents per principal.

The exact number depends on how many of the pending I-140 approvals actually generate new 2023 to 2026 priority dates.

4. Continuing annual porting demand after FY2026

The queue does not remain static after FY2026.

Historically, I estimated in earlier post that approximately 3.5K to 4K principals per fiscal year may continue to enter EB-1 India demand through priority-date porting.

The porting that occurs between the May 2026 inventory snapshot and the end of FY2026 is already being considered in my approximately 20K FY2026-end inventory estimate.

Therefore, I would start adding this recurring annual demand beginning with FY2027 rather than adding it again to FY2026.

If approximately 3.5K to 4K porting principals enter each future fiscal year:

With 1 dependent per principal:

3.5K x 2 = approximately 7K visas.

4K x 2 = approximately 8K visas.

That is approximately 7K to 8K of additional visa demand per fiscal year.

With 2 dependents per principal:

3.5K x 3 = approximately 10.5K visas.

4K x 3 = approximately 12K visas.

That is approximately 10.5K to 12K of additional visa demand per fiscal year.

This matters significantly because these applicants generally carry older priority dates and can consume visa numbers ahead of later new-PD applicants while the Final Action Date is trying to move forward.

5. What happens if reaching 2026 takes multiple fiscal years?

Using the approximately 54K and 71K midpoint starting estimates after accounting for part of the pending I-140 pipeline:

If it takes two additional fiscal years after FY2026:

1 dependent per principal:

Starting demand: approximately 54K.

Two years of recurring demand: approximately 14K to 16K.

Total cumulative demand: approximately 68K to 70K visas.

2 dependents per principal:

Starting demand: approximately 71K.

Two years of recurring demand: approximately 21K to 24K.

Total cumulative demand: approximately 92K to 95K visas.

If it takes three additional fiscal years:

1 dependent per principal:

Approximately 75K to 78K cumulative visa demand.

2 dependents per principal:

Approximately 102.5K to 107K cumulative visa demand.

This is why I do not think the question can be answered by simply looking at the 15K estimated new principals.

Bottom Line

My current framework is:

Approximately 20K pending I-485 applicants at the end of FY2026 through roughly the December 1, 2023 priority-date population.

Plus approximately 15K new principals that need to be worked through to reach the 2026 population.

Plus additional genuinely new-PD principals that emerge from the approximately 9K currently pending EB-1 petitions.

Plus approximately 3.5K to 4K additional older-PD principals entering through porting during each future fiscal year.

The approximately 20K FY2026-end backlog already assumes that some I-485s from the May inventory will be approved between May and the end of the fiscal year and that additional porting demand will also enter during that period. I am therefore not simply taking the May inventory and adding everything on top of it.

Under the basic 15K-principal model, I get approximately:

50K cumulative visa demand with 1 dependent per principal.

65K cumulative visa demand with 2 dependents per principal.

After allowing for some genuinely new-PD approvals from the approximately 9K pending I-140 petitions, a reasonable midpoint illustration moves this closer to:

54K cumulative visa demand with 1 dependent per principal.

71K cumulative visa demand with 2 dependents per principal.

And those are not necessarily the final numbers.

If reaching the 2026 priority-date population takes multiple additional fiscal years, another approximately 7K to 8K visas per year under the 1-dependent assumption, or approximately 10.5K to 12K per year under the 2-dependent assumption, could be consumed by continuing annual demand.

For that reason, I think 50K to 65K should be viewed more as the starting range of cumulative demand rather than the complete amount that ultimately needs to be absorbed.

Depending on derivative ratios, the disposition of the currently pending I-140 petitions, and how many fiscal years it takes to progress through the queue, cumulative visa demand before EB-1 India can sustainably reach the 2026 priority-date population could realistically become much larger than that starting range.

The purpose of this estimate is not to predict an exact month when the Final Action Date will reach 2026. It is to estimate the amount of demand sitting in front of that population and demonstrate why substantial movement into 2026 requires absorbing far more demand than simply counting the approximately 15K new principals.

Not a Lawyer. Personsl Insights.

Hi everyone, quick question.

My employer’s legal name is ABC & Sons, Inc. and that exact name is on my E-Verify record, STEM OPT I-20, and I-983.

However, on the online I-765, I entered ABC Sons Inc. because the field wouldn’t accept the “&” symbol.
My E-Verify Company ID is correct, and I completed biometrics today.

Could this minor name-formatting difference cause an RFE or any issue with my STEM OPT application?

Has anyone experienced this?

Thanks

Posting this because I spent a lot of time reading other people’s EB-1A case histories on here, and the detailed ones were much more useful than just “approved in X days.”

I’m anonymizing employers, customers, recommenders, etc. where needed, but I’ll name Y Combinator and give funding stages because those were actually relevant to the case.

My background is software/AI/cybersecurity. I graduated from undergrad in 2024, worked at a few tech companies/startups, then cofounded an AI startup that went through Y Combinator, and later joined a Series C cybersecurity startup.

I was also already in O-1A status during most of this.

I’m not an academic profile at all — no PhD, no big citation count, no major publication record, etc.

Filing #1

First EB-1A filed in August 2025 with premium processing.

RFE: August 2025
RFE response: November 2025
Denied: December 2025

We claimed:

• awards
• membership
• published material
• judging
• original contributions of major significance
• authorship
• high remuneration

USCIS accepted judging.

The rest were either rejected or not enough to get the case over the line.

Awards

One major part of the first petition was my startup background.

I had cofounded an AI startup that was accepted into Y Combinator and received YC’s standard $500k investment.

We tried to argue YC selection/funding under the awards criterion.

The theory was basically that YC is extremely selective, applicants are evaluated by recognized startup experts, and acceptance is a meaningful form of recognition of the founders.

USCIS did not agree.

Their view was essentially:

YC invested money into the company in exchange for equity. That is an investment, not a prize or award given to me personally for excellence.

In the RFE response, we submitted more evidence around YC selectivity and letters from people in venture capital explaining why getting into YC is highly competitive and based heavily on founder quality.

Still rejected.

In hindsight, this was a good example of the difference between “very impressive in the real world” and “fits the wording of an EB-1A criterion.”

Membership

We also tried to use Y Combinator under membership.

The argument was that YC is extremely selective and that acceptance is based on the achievements and abilities of the founders, as evaluated by recognized experts.

USCIS did not accept that either.

The issue was basically that YC is not really an “association” with membership in the way the regulation contemplates, and the investment/company-selection structure made the analogy harder.

Published material

We submitted press and media coverage around my work/startups.

USCIS pushed on two things:

1. whether the publication counted as major media, and
2. whether the article was actually “about me” rather than mainly about the company.

That distinction came up a lot.

An article saying “Startup X raised money and founders A/B are building Y” is helpful background evidence, but USCIS does not necessarily treat that as published material about the beneficiary.

Judging

This was accepted in filing #1.

I had judged/evaluated the work of others in the field and we had documentation around the invitation, what I judged, and why I had been selected.

This was by far the cleanest criterion in the first petition.

Authorship

We submitted technical writing/publications and argued authorship.

USCIS did not accept that the material qualified as scholarly authorship.

This was another area where, in hindsight, we were probably trying to fit a non-academic tech profile into a criterion that was not especially natural for my background.

High remuneration

We also claimed high remuneration based on compensation, equity, and startup economics.

USCIS was skeptical of the equity valuation component and did not find the evidence sufficient to show that I was being paid significantly more than others in the field.

Original contributions

This was one of the biggest issues in the first case.

We had a lot of evidence showing that I had built meaningful systems at different companies.

USCIS’s response was basically:

Fine, you built something useful. Why does that make it a contribution of major significance to the field?That is a much harder thing to prove. Evidence that your employer liked your work is not enough. Evidence that customers used something is helpful, but it still has to be tied specifically to your individual contribution. And company success does not automatically mean your work caused that success.

Company A / Company B

Before founding the YC company, I had worked as an AI engineer at a venture-backed enterprise software company. I’ll call it Company A.

Company A later raised a Series C and was eventually acquired by a major public cloud/data company, which I’ll call Company B.

At Company A, I worked on an AI product for investigating production incidents and helped build evaluation infrastructure around a multi-agent system. There was also a major financial institution involved as an early/design customer.

In the first petition, we leaned pretty hard on that work.

The argument was roughly:

• I made important technical contributions to a core AI product at Company A
• that product was important to the company’s technical/commercial story
• Company A subsequently raised a major Series C
• Company A was later acquired by Company B

The more aggressive framing was basically that my work was critical to the product, critical to Company A’s Series C story, and ultimately relevant to the acquisition by Company B.

In retrospect, that was probably too aggressive.

We had recommendation letters saying my work was important and evidence showing what I had built, but obviously we did not have an investor saying, “we invested because of his work,” or the acquirer saying, “we bought the company because of this specific system he developed.”

That causal jump was weak. This became one of the biggest changes in how we framed evidence later.

Instead of using a financing round or acquisition to prove that my individual work caused a major company outcome, we used those events to show that the organization itself was distinguished and commercially significant.

Then we separately proved my role inside the organization.

That was much cleaner.

Filing #2

We refiled rather than appealing.

Second filing was in May 2026, again with premium processing.

This case also got an RFE.

But the RFE was completely different.

By the time of the second RFE, USCIS had accepted five criteria:

• awards
• membership
• published material
• judging
• authorship

So the case was no longer really about whether I could scrape together three criteria.

USCIS focused on:

• original contributions of major significance
• leading/critical role
• high remuneration
• prospective benefit to the United States
• final merits

That was a much better problem to have.

What changed between the two filings

The biggest change was that I had much stronger evidence from my current company.

I had joined a Series C cybersecurity startup and was working on social-engineering defense.

My work involved products around AI-driven phishing/vishing simulations and related security capabilities used by companies to test and improve how employees respond to real-world social-engineering attacks.

By the time of the second filing/RFE, we could show much more concretely:

• what I personally built
• what I personally led
• which products/features I had significant ownership over
• how customers were using them (proven via redacted customer contracts)
• why the products mattered commercially
• why my role was important internally
• why the underlying security problem mattered outside the company
• why independent cybersecurity experts viewed the work as significant

This made the original-contributions and critical-role arguments much stronger.

Company A was reframed too

We still used Company A in the second case, but much more carefully.

We said something closer to:

• Company A was a distinguished organization
• its Series C, customers, and later acquisition by Company B were evidence of that
• I had a documented technical role on an important AI product there
• separate evidence showed exactly what I contributed
• recommenders explained why those contributions mattered technically

This avoided trying to claim causation that we could not directly prove.

That distinction sounds obvious in hindsight, but I think a lot of startup/tech petitions make this mistake.

Company-level success is useful. It just does not automatically become evidence of individual acclaim.

Original contributions in filing #2

For original contributions, we went much harder on actual impact.

The structure was basically:

what I built → who used it → what changed because of it → why the problem itself is important

We submitted detailed evidence around specific capabilities I had developed or led.

We also used letters that actually explained the work instead of just saying I was “exceptional.”

The response tied the work to the broader cybersecurity problem using outside data around:

• social engineering
• phishing
• business email compromise
• sensitive-data exposure
• financial losses suffered by U.S. organizations

Critical role

The critical-role case was also much cleaner in the second filing.

We documented that I had substantial ownership over important product areas at the cybersecurity company.

The evidence included:

• internal responsibility/ownership
• specific products/features
• customer/commercial impact
• senior leadership letters
• evidence around the company’s funding, customers, growth, and reputation

Because the company was already Series C, proving that it was a distinguished organization was much easier.

And this time we kept the logic separate:

1. prove the company is distinguished
2. prove my role was critical to it

instead of trying to use company success as a shortcut for individual impact.

Independent letters

Another major improvement was the recommendation letters.

The strongest independent letter came from a senior cybersecurity executive.

It was useful because the person could basically say:

I understand this problem, I understand the industry, I understand what this technology does, and here is why this work matters.

That was much more helpful than another former manager saying I was one of the best engineers they had worked with.

The second RFE response used independent experts much more to explain significance, rather than just to praise me.

Prospective U.S. benefit

USCIS also explicitly questioned whether my continued work would prospectively benefit the United States.

So we addressed that directly.

The response argued that I was already working on cybersecurity products aimed at threats affecting U.S. companies and users, and that my future work was a continuation of that same area.

We tied this to external data on social-engineering losses and attacks in the U.S., and used an independent senior cybersecurity executive to explain why the work mattered from a U.S. security perspective.

Final merits

This was probably the biggest issue in the second RFE.

By that point USCIS had already accepted five criteria, so just proving them again was not really the task.

The final-merits argument tied together:

• Y Combinator
• startup founding
• external venture funding
• acquisition of startup technology/assets
• work at Company

A

• Company

A’s

• Series C and later acquisition by Company

B

• judging
• published material
• technical authorship
• work at a distinguished Series C cybersecurity company
• important technical/product ownership
• customer/commercial impact
• independent cybersecurity recognition
• prospective U.S. benefit

Outcome

Approved in August 2026.

Timeline:

August 2025 — first EB-1A filed
August 2025 — RFE
November 2025 — RFE response
December 2025 — denied

May 2026 — second EB-1A filed
RFE — five criteria accepted, fight moved to contributions / critical role / remuneration / prospective benefit / final merits
August 2026 — approved

So I went:

denial → refile → RFE → approval

in under a year.

With recent data released and the current outlook, could anyone share your thoughts on when EB1 India June/2/2023 PD would become current. Most likely for my priority date to become current, the PD/FAD has to move at least till 6/15/2023 or 7/1/2023.

Your thoughts & insights would be very helpful. Is there any probability for my priority date to become current in October VB? FAD jump to July 2023 looks quite a significant jump from where it stands today.

Okay, so I have been waiting to write about this on Reddit for quite some time, I used to half write it and close the tab because I didn’t know how to start. But here it goes.

Hi, I am Mr. Jain I work in backend engineering / FinTech APIs and somewhere in the middle of my EB1A journey, USCIS actually said yes.

I filed my I-140 at the start of 2025, and if you have been through this, you know the waiting afterward is its own special kind of patience test. I refreshed my case status page more times than I would like to admit. Then the approval came through, and more recently December 2025 I had my biometrics appointment, since I filed I-485 concurrently. So the I-140 chapter is closed and now I'm in the AOS waiting room with everyone else. Still feels a little unreal typing that out.

Here's the part I actually want to talk about, because I think it's the part that quietly stops a lot of engineers before they even start: I don't have papers. I don't have patents. My work is backend systems, API design, scaling infrastructure the kind of stuff that mostly shows up as "nothing broke" rather than anything you can hold up and point to. Before I filed, I read a lot of EB1A reviews and success stories, and almost all of them were researchers or people with some kind of public-facing achievement. I remember thinking, okay, this clearly isn't built for someone like me.

Turns out I was wrong. Three criteria carried my case:

Leading or critical role being the person a system genuinely depended on, and actually being able to prove that with documentation, not just a job title.

Original contributions of major significance took the most effort to put into words. Not "I built a good API," but the actual before and after: what changed because of decisions I made and evidence that other people or teams noticed and built on it.

High salary/remuneration benchmarking my compensation against wage data for the field. Way more straightforward than I expected once I had the right comparisons in hand.

Honestly, the paperwork wasn't the hard part. The hard part was convincing myself my work was "extraordinary" enough to even try. Talking to a few people who have actually seen how EB1A cases get evaluated helped me a lot in framing mine.

If you are in backend, infra, or FinTech and you are assuming this door isn't open to you it might be, more than you think. A lot of this kind of impact is real, it's just invisible until someone writes it down properly.

Happy to answer questions about the process, the biometrics step or how I mapped my work to these criteria.

View Poll

I was looking at the latest USCIS I-140 data and trying to estimate how much EB2/EB3 to EB1 porting may have happened for India between March 2023 and April 2026.

Here’s my logic:

* In the USCIS March 2026 “approved petitions awaiting visa availability” data, there are about 15,867 EB1 India I-140s waiting for visa availability.

Source: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/eb\_i140\_i360\_i526\_performancedata\_fy2026\_q2\_v1.xlsx

* The March 2026 EB1 India Final Action Date was March 1, 2023.

Source: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2026/visa-bulletin-for-march-2026.html

* Separately, USCIS I-140 approval data shows roughly 32K approved EB1 India I-140s from FY2023 through the latest FY2026 data available around April 2026.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/i140\_rec\_by\_class\_country\_fy2026\_q2\_v1.xlsx

* Since FY2023 starts in October 2022, some of those petitions naturally had PDs before March 2023. Removing roughly 4.5K to 5.5K for that period leaves approximately 26.5K to 27.5K EB1 approvals corresponding to the March 2023 onward period.

* But only about 15.9K are showing as waiting for visa availability with the March 1, 2023 FAD.

So:

26.5K to 27.5K minus 15.9K = about 10.5K to 11.6K

My interpretation is that a large portion of this difference represents EB1 petitions filed during March 2023 to April 2026 that carried an older retained priority date, likely due to EB2/EB3 to EB1 porting.

That would suggest roughly 10K to 12K EB1 India porting or retained-PD petitions during this period, or around 3K to 4K per year.

The estimated 10K to 12K portings may also be concentrated more heavily in 2023 and 2024, given the higher EB1 approval rates during that period.

Obviously this is still an estimate, not a count of unique people. There may be duplicate petitions and other USCIS data effects that make the true number somewhat different, but I don’t expect it to vary widely.

Not sure if there is any flaw in this logic as I was thinking this when I am analyzing the numbers

Note: The USCIS “approved I140 petitions awaiting visa availability” data appears to include beneficiaries with pending I-485 applications as long as they have not yet received their green card. USCIS states that this report excludes petitions for individuals who have already obtained LPR status or U.S. citizenship. Therefore, filing an I-485 by itself does not appear to remove the underlying I-140 from this dataset.

Not a Lawyer. Personal Insights.

I’m trying to get a realistic sense of what’s actually possible outside of the typical PhD/researcher profiles I see on here.
I don’t have a PhD, publications, citations, major awards, or a huge list of academic accomplishments.
I’m considering EB-2 NIW and potentially building
my profile over the next 1–2 years, but I’m curious:

1. Has anyone here had a similar “professional/industry” profile and gotten approved?
2. What did your profile look like at the time of filing?
3. What was your proposed endeavor?
4. Did you use an attorney or self-petition?
5. Was there anything about your case that you think made USCIS say yes despite the profile looking relatively weak on paper?

Especially interested in cases where you initially thought, “Honestly, my profile probably isn’t strong enough,” but you ended up getting approved.
Would love to hear the outlier/surprise approval stories. 🙏

Looking for opinions from people who have filed EB-1A, especially academics/scientists.

I’m a biomedical researcher based outside the US, currently an independent group leader/PI but without tenure. Don’t have a EU passport obviously.

Quick profile:
ERC-funded researcher
~1,600 citations (1,470 since 2021)
h-index 15, i10-index 21
20+ peer-reviewed publications, including first/senior/corresponding-author papers in high-impact journals
50+ completed peer reviews across ~10 journals
100+ review invitations
In international grant-review panels/committees

Lead a research team of ~15 people
Competitive national/international research funding
Invited international scientific talks

I think I can make a strong case for authorship, judging, original contributions of major significance, and leading/critical role.

My main concern is final merits rather than meeting 3 criteria.
For those familiar with academic EB-1A cases: Would you consider this strong enough to file now? How important would recommendation letters and field-normalized citation data be? Any obvious weaknesses or areas USCIS might challenge?
I’m intentionally leaving out institutions, research topic, publications and specific awards/funding details for anonymity.

UPDATE: Not living in the US, is that going to lead to a straight up denial?