WeGreened Weekly Approval Summary: Week of September 21 to September 27, 2026

During the week of September 21 to September 27, 2026, WeGreened received 168 approval notices from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Of these approvals, 143 were for NIW (National Interest Waiver), 21 were for EB1A (Alien of Extraordinary Ability), 2 were for EB1B (Outstanding Professors or Researchers), and 2 were for O1A (Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement).

NIW again represented the majority of approvals, while EB1A formed a larger and more varied group across academic, research, and applied professional settings.
 

EB1A and NIW Credential Analysis

EB1A publications ranged from 6 to 52 (Q1: 13, median: 19, Q3: 31), while citations ranged from 117 to 3,830 (Q1: 289, median: 493, Q3: 1,438). The two highest citation records were statistical outliers relative to the rest of the group, while the middle half of approvals fell between 289 and 1,438 citations. The lower end was also notable, with one approval at 117 citations. Together, these figures show that even within EB1A, recognition metrics can vary considerably across fields and professional settings.

Among the 142 NIW cases with a numeric publication count, publications ranged from 2 to 84 (Q1: 6, median: 8, Q3: 14.75). Citations across all 143 NIW approvals ranged from 4 to 4,689 (Q1: 43, median: 132, Q3: 287.5). A relatively small number of highly established profiles drove the upper extremes. The central distribution was considerably more moderate, reinforcing that the typical approved NIW record should not be measured against the most prolific or highly cited applicant in the group.

Insights on Petitioner Backgrounds and Fields

EB1A remained strongly Ph.D.- and STEM-oriented, with 20 Ph.D. holders, 19 STEM approvals, and 2 non-STEM approvals. Unlike NIW, the group included no students or graduate trainees. Research staff formed the largest employment category, followed by postdoctoral researchers, applied technical professionals, and faculty. The field distribution was also unusually balanced, with engineering, biomedical work, and life sciences each contributing five approvals and computing contributing four.

NIW reflected a much broader range of career stages. Students and graduate trainees formed the largest employment group with 45 approvals, followed by 29 postdoctoral researchers and 25 applied technical professionals. Biomedical, clinical, and public health fields accounted for 42 approvals, while engineering and computing contributed 33 and 32, respectively. The educational mix included 74 Ph.D. holders, 45 master’s-level petitioners, 16 applicants with medical or dental qualifications, and 8 applicants without advanced degrees. These results illustrate how NIW cases can emerge from distinct professional pathways, provided that the correct underlying EB2 qualification and the separate national interest waiver requirements are established.

Highlighted EB1A Case: Pharmaceutical Scientist Approved After RFE With 9 Publications and 117 Citations

One of this week’s most instructive EB1A approvals involved a pharmaceutical scientist whose filing-stage record included 9 peer-reviewed articles, 117 citations, and at least 28 completed peer reviews. The petition was processed under premium processing. USCIS accepted the judging and scholarly-authorship criteria but issued a Request for Evidence seeking further support for original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role, and the petition as a whole under the Final Merits Determination.

For original contributions, our response did not treat the citation total as a complete measure of significance. We placed individual publications in the context of their field and publication year. Two of the petitioner’s articles had citation rates approximately 3.79 and 4.76 times their corresponding field averages. The updated record included 131 citations, of which 118 were documented as independent, and the citations came from researchers across 28 countries. We also analyzed representative citing papers to show how other researchers used the petitioner’s findings in subsequent pharmaceutical formulation, drug-delivery, and biomaterials research. This structure connected the petitioner’s specific work to independent use and broader influence in the field.

For the leading or critical role criterion, we separated two questions that USCIS had raised: what the petitioner personally contributed and whether the relevant organization and research division had a distinguished reputation. A detailed employer letter described the petitioner’s contributions to product development, manufacturing scale-up, technology transfer, regulatory approval, commercialization, and a company-wide design-control framework. We paired that account with objective documentation of the organization’s regulatory accomplishments, research capabilities, manufacturing scale, distribution reach, and industry recognition. This allowed the officer to evaluate both the importance of the petitioner’s performance and the standing of the organization in which that role was performed.

The letter strategy added another layer of support. The original filing included six expert letters, five of which were independent opinions from specialists familiar with the petitioner’s work through her publications rather than direct collaboration. The RFE response then paired a detailed employer letter with an additional independent advisory opinion and objective supporting records. Finally, we brought the accepted judging and authorship criteria together with the strengthened evidence of research influence and critical industry responsibility under the Final Merits Determination. The petition was ultimately approved after the RFE response.

This approval illustrates why an EB1A case should not be evaluated through raw citation totals alone. Field-specific comparisons, documented independent use, detailed evidence of an applicant’s organizational role, and a cohesive Final Merits presentation can give USCIS a clearer basis for evaluating sustained recognition and field-level standing.

Adjudication Trends and Policy Observations

Recent USCIS policy changes make the quality of both the initial filing and any subsequent RFE response increasingly important. In August 2026, USCIS updated its adjudication guidance to restore officers’ discretion to deny certain benefit requests without first issuing a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny when required initial evidence is missing or the record does not establish eligibility. USCIS guidance also permits response periods shorter than the maximum allowed in appropriate circumstances. These developments place greater importance on presenting a complete and well-supported record from the outset rather than assuming that every evidentiary issue will result in an opportunity to supplement the case later.

When USCIS does issue an RFE, however, the Policy Manual provides that the notice should identify which eligibility requirement has not been established, explain why the existing evidence is insufficient, and identify the additional evidence being requested. This makes the wording of the RFE itself an important roadmap for preparing the response. In this week’s highlighted EB1A case, USCIS had already accepted the judging and scholarly-authorship criteria while raising specific concerns about original contributions, the petitioner’s leading or critical role, and the overall Final Merits Determination. Our response therefore focused on those specific issues rather than rebuilding the petition from the beginning.

From our firm’s perspective, overcoming an RFE is not simply a matter of submitting more documents. The response must identify exactly what the officer is questioning, determine which evidence already in the record addresses that concern, and reinforce the argument with targeted objective documentation where appropriate. In the highlighted case, that meant placing citation impact in field-specific context, documenting independent use of the petitioner’s research, and separately establishing both the importance of the petitioner’s role and the distinguished reputation of the organization in which that role was performed. The approval illustrates why a focused legal and evidentiary response can be especially important in the current adjudication environment.