A Securities Executive and an Immunology Professor — Two EB-1A Petitions Approved Under Premium Processing With No RFE

According to the latest USCIS data for the third quarter of FY2026, the approval rate for EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions has fallen to about 32.2%. Even so, the Sophie Team recently received two EB-1A approvals in a row, both under premium processing and both without a Request for Evidence.

The two clients could hardly be more different. One is an executive in the structured products division of a major Taiwanese securities firm, with more than twenty years in the financial industry. The other is an immunology professor at a leading Taiwanese university, with more than 60 published papers and over a thousand citations.

Despite their different backgrounds, both faced the same question: how to make the officer see clearly where the applicant stands in their field.

Case 1 | Mr. H.: an industry executive, approved with no RFE after refiling

Timeline

• August 17, 2026 | I-140 receipted by USCIS
• September 2, 2026 | Approved with no RFE

Profile

• Field: Design and issuance of securities and structured financial products
• Position: Head of the financial products division at a major Taiwanese securities firm
• Result: Approved on refiling, with no RFE

Mr. H. had previously filed an EB-1A that was not approved. In that first petition, USCIS accepted two criteria, a leading or critical role and media coverage, but did not accept his claims of high salary, scholarly articles, and membership.

For the refiling, we re-examined his twenty-plus years in finance, revised the strategy, and claimed five criteria:

• A leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
• Published material about him and his work in professional or major media
• High salary
• Judging the work of others in the same or an allied field
• Original contributions of major significance

Challenge 1: How do you redesign the strategy after a denial?

Two criteria had already been accepted. The refiling required deciding which strengths to keep, which weaker criteria to drop, and which important experiences could still be documented.

We rebuilt the account of his career and tailored the evidence strategy to his financial-industry background. That included developing qualifying industry judging experience and preparing new comparative evidence for the high-salary criterion, rather than simply repeating the first petition's arguments.

Challenge 2: How do you show that industry influence amounts to original contributions of major significance?

For a finance executive, original contributions rarely appear the way academic work does, through papers and citations. Reviewing his career, we found that his professional influence extended well beyond his own company: he had long been involved in industry affairs and had taken part in shaping relevant industry policy and frameworks.

We therefore focused on showing how his work went beyond internal results at a single firm and had a major impact on broader industry practice and development. The refiled EB-1A was approved without an RFE.

Case 2 | Prof. K.: demonstrating sustained academic influence

Timeline

• August 3, 2026 | I-140 receipted by USCIS
• August 19, 2026 | Approved with no RFE

Profile

• Field: Immunology
• Position: Professor at a leading Taiwanese university
• Record: 60+ papers, more than a thousand citations
• Result: Approved with no RFE

We claimed five criteria for Prof. K.:

• Judging the work of others in the same or an allied field
• Authorship of scholarly articles in the field
• Original contributions of major significance
• Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence
• A leading or critical role for distinguished organizations

Challenge 1: With a strong record, how do you show relative standing in the field?

Papers, citations, and peer-review records can satisfy specific EB-1A criteria. At the final merits determination, the evidence as a whole must also show sustained national or international acclaim and that the applicant is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

So instead of piling up publication and citation counts, we benchmarked his citations against the field and showed how other researchers had adopted his findings and built further research on them, establishing his relative standing and real-world influence.

Challenge 2: How do you show long-term, sustained influence?

Some of Prof. K.'s most important work was published years ago, and a case cannot rest on a single highly cited paper or one period of output. The record had to show that his influence continues today.

We assembled evidence spanning many years, drawing on his later research, continuing citations, professional awards, and academic roles, to show how his reputation was built and has kept growing. His EB-1A was also approved without an RFE.

Our advice: choosing the right evidence for your background

There is no one-size-fits-all EB-1A formula. Whether the applicant is an industry executive or an academic researcher, the key is to choose the strongest criteria and evidence for that person's background and to show clearly their distinguished standing in the field.

If you are interested in an EB-1A or National Interest Waiver (NIW) petition, please contact our team for a professional assessment.