Employment-based green cards
45%of these petitions were denied in FY2025
Up from 20% two years earlier, and the first three quarters of FY2026 crossed 50%. Most denials are not about credentials. They are about framing, evidence that does not match the endeavor, and a legal argument that was never actually made. Those are fixable, but only before you file.
And a National Interest Waiver is not always the filing you want. The same assessment scores you against every employment-based route: EB-1A, EB-1B, EB-1C, EB-2 with PERM, EB-3, EB-5, and the temporary visas people hold while they wait. A cited researcher is often an EB-1B case. An L-1A manager is almost always an EB-1C case. Both sit in the first preference, where there is no EB-2 queue at all.
No account required · We tell you if you do not qualify
The direction of travel
This is not a hard year. It is a trend, and it is the agency’s own data.
The denial rate more than doubled in three years. Over the same period the backlog of pending petitions grew 5×, from 19,117 to 96,297. Receipts rose while decisions fell.
Most published guidance is calibrated to the left of this chart. Law firms publish their approvals and appeal bodies publish denials, so the case summaries you will find online imply a denial rate around 9%.
Why the published record misleads →Every route, not one
The best filing is often not the one you came here for.
People arrive asking about a National Interest Waiver because that is the acronym they have heard. A tool that answers only that question is how this category produces so many wasted filings. So the assessment scores you against all 14 routes below and tells you when one of the others is the better case.
EB-2 National Interest Waiver
INA § 203(b)(2)(B)(i)
Master's or PhD holders, researchers, engineers and founders with a specific, bounded undertaking that benefits the United States beyond their own employer.
self-petitionno PERMgreen card
EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
INA § 203(b)(1)(A)
Researchers with substantial citation records, award winners, executives of distinguished organisations, and people with genuine press coverage.
self-petitionno PERMgreen card
EB-2 with PERM labor certification
INA § 203(b)(2)(A)
Anyone with a willing employer whose record does not support a national-importance argument. The endeavor does not have to matter nationally, the job just has to exist.
employer requiredPERMgreen card
EB-3 Skilled Worker / Professional
INA § 203(b)(3)
People whose degree or experience does not meet the EB-2 advanced-degree threshold. Also a fallback when an EB-2 is denied on base eligibility.
employer requiredPERMgreen card
EB-5 Immigrant Investor
INA § 203(b)(5)
People for whom capital is available and credentials are the binding constraint. No degree, field, or achievement requirement of any kind.
self-petitionno PERMgreen card
O-1A Extraordinary Ability (nonimmigrant)
INA § 101(a)(15)(O)
People who need to keep working in the U.S. while a green card case is prepared or waits in a queue. A common bridge from H-1B.
employer requiredno PERMtemporary
Physician National Interest Waiver
INA § 203(b)(2)(B)(ii)
Medical doctors willing to work in a Health Professional Shortage Area, Medically Underserved Area, or a VA facility.
self-petitionno PERMgreen card
EB-1B Outstanding Professor or Researcher
INA § 203(b)(1)(B)
Postdocs, faculty and industry researchers with a permanent research position offer and a substantial citation record.
employer requiredno PERMgreen card
EB-1C Multinational Manager or Executive
INA § 203(b)(1)(C)
L-1A holders, and anyone who spent a year managing at a company with a qualifying US affiliate, parent, subsidiary or branch.
employer requiredno PERMgreen card
EB-4 Special Immigrants
INA § 203(b)(4)
People who fall inside one of the enumerated categories. It is not a general-purpose route and there is no way to argue into it.
employer requiredno PERMgreen card
H-1B Specialty Occupation
INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)
People who need lawful work authorisation now while a green card case is prepared or waits in a queue.
employer requiredno PERMtemporary
L-1A Intracompany Transferee (Manager or Executive)
INA § 101(a)(15)(L)
Managers at multinationals, and founders opening a US office of an existing foreign company.
employer requiredno PERMtemporary
L-1B Intracompany Transferee (Specialised Knowledge)
INA § 101(a)(15)(L)
Technical specialists moving within a multinational who do not manage people.
employer requiredno PERMtemporary
TN, USMCA Professional
USMCA Chapter 16 / INA § 214(e)
Canadian and Mexican citizens whose job title appears on the USMCA professions list.
employer requiredno PERMtemporary
Why strong candidates get denied
Officers are not grading how impressive you are. They are checking whether a specific legal test is met.
These are the failure patterns that recur across published denials and appeal decisions. Our assessment checks your record against every one of them and tells you which apply to you.
- PRONG 1
The endeavor is described at field level
“I will conduct research in artificial intelligence” gives an officer nothing to evaluate. Approved petitions name a specific, bounded endeavor with stakes a stranger can assess.
- PRONG 1
Field importance is argued instead of personal contribution
USCIS already accepts that oncology and cybersecurity matter. What it needs is evidence about what you specifically are doing inside that field.
- PRONG 2
No credible execution plan
A strong idea with no steps, resources, milestones or measurable outcomes is one of the most common RFE triggers, and one of the easiest to fix.
- PRONG 3
The balancing test is an afterthought
Prong 3 asks why the waiver is warranted for you specifically. A paragraph pointing back at prongs 1 and 2 is not an argument.
- RECORD
Documents contradict each other
Employment dates, job titles and duties that differ across your résumé, letters and prior filings invite questions that delay or sink otherwise strong cases.
- LETTERS
Reference letters full of superlatives
Letters calling you a genius but never addressing your endeavor or its national importance add nothing, and signal that whoever drafted them misread the requirement.
How it works
Assess
Answer a structured questionnaire. We check your EB-2 base qualification first, a threshold issue that sinks petitions before Dhanasar is ever reached, then score all three prongs and name every weakness we find.
Compare
See adjudicated cases with profiles like yours: what they filed, what USCIS challenged, and how it ended. Every record cites its source, so you can read the original.
Build
Assemble evidence into labelled exhibits, request and track recommendation letters, draft your endeavor statement and petition letter, and export a paginated, Bates-stamped packet with a filing checklist.
Decide
Handle it yourself, or publish a redacted summary and compare proposals from bar-verified attorneys. Your identity stays hidden until you accept one.
What we will not do
We would rather lose a customer than help file a petition that should not be filed.
We tell you when you do not qualify.
If your record does not support a filing yet, the assessment says so and explains what would have to change. Filing early with a thin record is a documented way to lose both the fee and a year.
We never predict approval.
No tool can. We identify weaknesses against real outcomes and cite the cases behind every finding. What you do with that is your decision.
We do not take a cut of legal fees.
Attorneys pay a flat platform fee, owed whether or not you hire them. Percentage-based referral fees are impermissible fee-splitting under bar ethics rules, and they would corrupt the incentive to match you well.
Your identity is yours until you release it.
Marketplace listings are redacted by default. Attorneys see a profile, not a person, until you accept a proposal.
Find out what is actually weak in your case.
The assessment is free, needs no account, and takes about ten minutes. You will get a prong-by-prong report naming every weakness we can find, with comparable adjudicated cases.
Begin assessment