WeGreened Approval Statistics: Week of February 9, 2026
During the week of February 9 to February 15, 2026, WeGreened received 102 approval notices from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Of the 102 approvals, 75 were for NIW (National Interest Waiver), 24 for EB1A (Alien of Extraordinary Ability), 1 for EB1B (Outstanding Professors or Researchers), and 2 for O1A (Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement).
NIW again represented the majority of approvals, while EB1A remained steady among petitioners whose records could be presented as sustained, field-recognized excellence under a totality-of-the-evidence review.
EB1A and NIW Credential Analysis
EB1A petitioners this week showed concentrated impact metrics. Publications ranged from 7 to 51 (Q1: 12.75, median: 17.5, Q3: 27.25), and citations ranged from 118 to 3,570 (Q1: 344.25, median: 548, Q3: 828.75). Even with variation at the high end, approvals clustered around profiles that could be framed as sustained influence and recognition under final merits review.
NIW petitioners reflected a broader spectrum of credential profiles. Publications ranged from 2 to 75 (Q1: 5, median: 7, Q3: 10), and citations ranged from 14 to 1,696 (Q1: 49, median: 92, Q3: 163). Compared with EB1A, NIW again showed a wider spread across both publications and citations, reinforcing that approvals can include both earlier-stage records and more established profiles when the petition clearly frames national importance, credible forward momentum, and future U.S. benefit.
Insights on Petitioner Backgrounds and Fields
EB1A approvals this week were anchored primarily in biomedical and health-related fields and computer/data-facing specialties, with additional approvals across physical sciences and engineering. Employment backgrounds included a meaningful mix of industry professionals, research staff, and trainees, reinforcing that EB1A outcomes depend less on setting and more on whether the evidence can be organized into clear, externally validated proof of sustained, field-recognized excellence.
NIW approvals spanned biomedical and health sciences, AI/software and data-driven work, and multiple engineering tracks. Many NIW petitioners were on research-intensive pathways such as PhD students or research roles, with a substantial subset in industry. Across these profiles, the strongest NIW outcomes tended to be those where the endeavor was defined with precision, the record showed concrete progress, and the petition explained how a waiver would expand U.S. benefit through flexibility and scale.
Highlighted EB1A Case: Cancer Biology EB1A Approved in 20 Days with 118 Citations
One notable EB1A approval this week involved a cancer biology professional working in a translational research setting, with work focused on computational and biomarker-driven approaches that support real-world oncology decision-making and therapeutic development. The record reflected 7 publications and 118 citations, and the case was filed with premium processing on January 21, 2026 and approved on February 10, 2026.
From a strategy perspective, we built the case under the two-part Kazarian framework and treated the petition as an “evidence map” designed for fast, officer-friendly review. On the criteria step, we emphasized field-appropriate proof beyond citations by documenting extensive peer-review service and other trusted gatekeeping activity, paired with clear evidence of authorship and professional standing. We also strengthened the leading/critical role element by tying the petitioner’s responsibilities to high-impact translational outputs, showing why the work mattered outside the organization and how it aligned with broader oncology needs rather than internal performance metrics alone.
Third-party validation was a key lever in this filing. The petition was supported by six recommendation letters in total, including two letters originally prepared for the petitioner’s prior NIW filing and four newly drafted EB1A-focused letters. We intentionally did not treat NIW letters as “drop-in” EB1A evidence. Instead, we reworked the overall letter package so each recommender served a distinct purpose: some letters established independent field context and external recognition, while others translated technical contributions into concrete significance and clarified why the petitioner’s role and outcomes rise to the EB1A “small percentage at the very top” standard. We also cross-referenced the letters with exhibits so officers could quickly verify key assertions through objective documentation.
Compared with some earlier highlighted low-citation EB1A approvals, this case leaned less on “substitute metrics” and more on a tightly integrated final-merits narrative that connects gatekeeping trust, translational impact, and role criticality into one cohesive story. In other words, the petition was not built to “explain away” modest citation counts, but to show why the overall record demonstrates sustained, field-recognized excellence under the totality of the evidence.
Adjudication Trends and Policy Observations
EB1A approvals this week once again hinged on a compelling final-merits demonstration. Citation counts spanned a broad range, showing that strong citation records are common but not determinative. Lower-citation or non-traditional profiles succeeded by centering the petition on objective indicators of field trust, including credible gatekeeping roles, externally visible recognition, and well-documented leading or critical contributions with impact that extends beyond internal performance metrics.
NIW approvals reflected similar flexibility across disciplines and career stages. The spread reinforces a consistent takeaway: the strongest NIW outcomes arise from petitions that precisely define a nationally important endeavor, substantiate the petitioner’s strong positioning through organized, concrete evidence, and clearly explain how waiving the job-offer and labor-certification requirements advances U.S. interests through greater flexibility and scale rather than relying on any single statistic.
Procedurally, premium processing featured prominently again, more often as an upgrade after initial standard filing than as an upfront request. With the premium processing fee increase taking effect on March 1, 2026, timing and budgeting may weigh more heavily in client decision-making. Across this batch, however, success aligned most closely with overall record quality, tight legal framing under the relevant framework, and effective third-party validation rather than procedural choices alone.