USCIS Under Trump:
Approval Rates, New Policies,
and What It Means for Your Case

I. The Policy Environment — What Changed and What Stayed the Same

The Trump administration's immigration policy priorities in its second term have tracked closely with its first — with some important differences in both emphasis and mechanism. The primary focuses have been:

• Increased scrutiny of employment-based petitions, particularly for visa categories that have historically had high approval rates
• Elevated evidentiary standards applied through the RFE and NOID process, rather than purely through regulatory change
• Expanded use of site visits for H-1B, L-1, and O-1 petitions through the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) unit
• Rescission or reinterpretation of Biden-era policy guidance, including guidance that had liberalized some evidentiary standards
• Processing delays in certain categories due to staffing changes and increased manual review

Critically, several aspects of the system have remained stable: the underlying statutory framework has not changed; the Dhanasar NIW standard and Kazarian extraordinary ability framework remain operative; and premium processing continues to be available for most employment-based petitions.

II. H-1B: Increased Scrutiny, Specialty Occupation Re-Examination

The H-1B category has seen the most pronounced shift in adjudicatory posture. The key development has been a revival of aggressive scrutiny of the "specialty occupation" requirement — an approach that mirrors the first Trump administration's restrictive stance from 2017–2020.

What Practitioners Are Observing

• Higher RFE rates for positions in IT consulting, staffing, and third-party placement arrangements, where the H-1B employer is not the direct worksite employer
• More detailed scrutiny of job duties — adjudicators are increasingly challenging whether a position truly requires a specialized degree, particularly for roles like "computer programmer," "business analyst," and generalist management roles
• Employer-employee relationship issues re-emerging as a ground for denial in staffing and consulting scenarios
• Increased FDNS site visits to H-1B worksites, including visits to third-party client locations

What This Means for Applicants

H-1B petitions require more careful attention to the specialty occupation justification than they did during the Biden years. Petitions that rely on generic job descriptions or minimal educational requirement analysis are at heightened risk. The employer's legal support team — and the petitioning attorney — must be prepared to make an affirmative, specific argument for why the position requires application of a body of highly specialized knowledge.

III. O-1A and EB-1A: Extraordinary Ability Under Heightened Review

Extraordinary ability petitions have historically been resilient across administrations — the standard is statutory and the Kazarian framework has remained stable. However, practitioners are observing a pattern of increased final merits scrutiny in the O-1A and EB-1A contexts.

O-1A Trends

• RFEs are more frequently targeting the quality of evidence rather than its absence — adjudicators are noting that criteria are technically satisfied but questioning whether the evidence demonstrates the requisite level of acclaim
• Judging and reviewing activities are receiving more scrutiny — one-time participation in a conference review committee is less likely to satisfy the criterion than it was 2–3 years ago
• Expert letters are being analyzed more carefully for independence and specificity — generic letters from colleagues are generating RFEs

EB-1A Trends

• The final merits determination (Step Two of the Kazarian framework) is receiving more weight — petitions that technically satisfy three criteria are encountering denial notices that find the overall record insufficient to establish the "very top of the field"
• Citation analysis has become more rigorous — adjudicators are more frequently comparing citation counts to field norms and rejecting claims of high-impact scholarship where the numbers don't support it
• The "critical role" criterion is being parsed more narrowly — employment at a well-known organization does not automatically establish a critical role without evidence of the individual's specific impact on that organization's outcomes

IV. EB-2 NIW: The Dhanasar Framework Under Pressure

NIW petitions are experiencing heightened scrutiny of the third prong — the waiver justification. Some practitioners have observed a pattern of RFEs that accept the first two prongs (substantial merit/national importance and well positioned) but question why the labor certification requirement specifically should be waived for this petitioner.

Additionally, the administration has signaled skepticism toward NIW petitions filed by individuals in fields broadly characterized as "in the national interest" without case-specific evidence — particularly filings that rely on generic claims about the importance of STEM research or healthcare without connecting the individual's specific work to a documented national need.

V. Processing Times — What's Changed

Processing time trends under the current administration reflect a mixed picture:

• Premium processing remains available and largely reliable for most I-129 (nonimmigrant) and I-140 (immigrant) petition types — 15 business days for most categories, with some recent extension to 45 days for certain new categories
• Regular processing for I-140 petitions has lengthened at some service centers, partially attributed to increased RFE issuance and the time required for responses
• I-485 adjustment of status processing has slowed in some field offices, with interview scheduling delays at several locations
• Consular processing at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad has been affected by staffing changes and some appointment availability reductions at key locations

VI. What Has Not Changed — Important Stability Points

Despite the elevated scrutiny environment, several important stability points deserve emphasis for applicants considering whether to proceed with filings:

• Well-documented, narrative-strong petitions continue to be approved. The current environment has made weak petitions weaker — it has not made strong petitions denied. The premium on preparation has increased, not the baseline probability of denial for well-prepared petitions.
• The statutory framework is unchanged. Congress has not modified the INA provisions governing O-1, EB-1A, EB-2 NIW, H-1B, or L-1 standards. Administrative interpretation can shift; the legal foundation has not.
• Premium processing remains a powerful tool. For petitioners who need certainty of timeline, premium processing provides it — and a premium-processed petition adjudicated within 15 business days is as valid as any other.
• Appeals and MTRs remain available. A denial is not necessarily the end of the road. Motions to Reopen and Reconsider, and appeals to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), provide meaningful review pathways for petitions denied on grounds that are legally contestable.

VII. Strategic Recommendations for the Current Environment

File with more documentation, not less

The adjudicatory environment rewards preparation. Petitions that anticipate likely RFE grounds and address them proactively in the initial filing reduce response cycles and approval timelines. The cost of front-loading documentation is lower than the cost of an RFE response.

Invest in expert letters

Expert letters from independent, eminent practitioners who address the significance of the petitioner's contributions — not just their credentials — have become more important, not less. A well-drafted expert letter from a credible independent source remains one of the most reliable petition-strengthening tools available.

Use premium processing for certainty

In an environment where regular processing times are less predictable, premium processing provides calendar certainty for time-sensitive situations. The fee is substantial but modest relative to the cost of delayed work authorization.

Evaluate the full strategic picture

For professionals who have been assuming H-1B is their only pathway, the current environment is an appropriate moment to evaluate O-1A eligibility, NIW eligibility, and other non-lottery pathways. The H-1B remains viable, but dependence on a single lottery-based pathway carries concentration risk.

Conclusion

The current USCIS adjudicatory environment is more demanding than it was during the Biden administration. Scrutiny is higher, RFE rates are elevated in certain categories, and the final merits analysis in extraordinary ability cases carries more weight. None of this makes a strong case weak — but it does make a weak case weaker, and it elevates the importance of preparation.

For professionals evaluating U.S. immigration options in 2025 and 2026, the most important response to the current climate is not delay — it is preparation. The strongest cases get approved in every administration. The cases that struggle are the ones that were borderline to begin with and filed with insufficient documentation.