USCIS Shifts Focus from H-1B to EB-1A with Tougher Eligibility Standards

The EB-1A green card category is facing stricter adjudication standards at the same time as new immigration initiatives and court rulings are reshaping how extraordinary-ability visas are evaluated in the United States.

As tighter limits on the H-1B visa push skilled workers to seek alternative routes to permanent residency, the EB-1A category has become increasingly prominent. Reserved for individuals of extraordinary ability in fields including science, the arts, education, business and athletics, the visa does not require employer sponsorship or labour certification. Applicants must instead show sustained national or international recognition based on their achievements.

Immigration attorneys report that this standard is now being applied more rigorously. Kevin J. Andrews, an immigration lawyer, says adjudicators are demanding more extensive evidence and are applying higher evidentiary thresholds. According to practitioners, even applicants with strong professional records are receiving detailed requests for additional documentation, signalling a more restrictive approach by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

This heightened scrutiny has emerged alongside the introduction of a new and controversial pathway known as the “Gold Card”. Designed as an alternative route to permanent residency, the programme places primary emphasis on an applicant’s financial resources rather than professional achievement. Critics argue that the scheme undermines the structure of the existing immigration framework by treating wealth as equivalent to extraordinary ability.

A coalition led by the American Association of University Professors and immigrant researchers has filed a legal challenge against the Gold Card. The lawsuit claims the programme disregards the distinctions established by Congress between employment-based categories such as EB-1, EB-2 and EB-5. While EB-5 was explicitly created to reward investment, EB-1A was intended to recognise exceptional accomplishment. The plaintiffs argue that merging these principles weakens the credibility of merit-based immigration.

Attorneys warn that applicants who have already applied under the Gold Card may face prolonged uncertainty. The legal challenge raises constitutional questions that could take years to resolve, potentially leaving cases on hold until the courts reach a final decision.

At the same time, a federal court ruling has called into question how EB-1A petitions have been assessed for more than a decade. On 28 January 2026, Senior US District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon invalidated the so-called “Kazarian Rule”, a two-step adjudication process used by USCIS. Under this framework, officers conducted a final merits review even after applicants met the statutory criteria.

Judge Bataillon ruled that USCIS did not have the authority to impose this additional step, as it was introduced through internal guidance rather than formal rulemaking.