We hope this newsletter finds you well. In this edition, we bring you important updates on various immigration matters. Please take a moment to review the following key highlights:
How to Secure an EB-1A or EB-2 NIW Green Card: A Strategic Playbook
For professionals who have built a record of achievement or whose work carries national significance, the EB-1A and EB-2 NIW represent two of the most powerful pathways to U.S. permanent residency. Unlike employment-based categories that tether the applicant to a single sponsoring employer and a lengthy labor certification process, both EB-1A and NIW allow self-petitioning — meaning the applicant, not the employer, drives the case. But self-petitioning is not synonymous with self-approving. These categories demand a deliberate, evidence-driven strategy, and the applicants who succeed are almost always those who begin documenting their careers years before they file. The following is a practical roadmap for how to position yourself for approval in either category.
Step 1: Honestly Assess Which Category Fits:
The first and most consequential decision is choosing the right lane. The EB-1A is reserved for individuals at the very top of their field — a standard USCIS describes as “sustained national or international acclaim.” If you have won major awards, published widely cited research, been featured in major media, judged the work of others in your discipline, or commanded a salary significantly above your peers, EB-1A should be on the table. The EB-2 NIW, by contrast, asks a different question: not whether you are at the top, but whether your work is nationally important and whether you are well-positioned to advance it. A founder with modest personal acclaim but a venture solving a pressing national problem — in AI safety, semiconductor manufacturing, rural healthcare, or clean energy — may be a stronger NIW candidate than EB-1A candidate. Many sophisticated applicants file both petitions concurrently, letting USCIS adjudicate on parallel tracks.
Step 2: Build the Evidence Portfolio Strategically:
Regardless of category, evidence is everything. For EB-1A, begin cataloguing your work against the ten regulatory criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) — awards, memberships in selective organizations, published material about you, judging the work of others, original contributions of major significance, scholarly authorship, displayed works, leading roles in distinguished organizations, high remuneration, and commercial success in the arts. You need to clear at least three criteria in the first Kazarian step, but strong cases routinely document five or more with depth. For NIW, structure your evidence around the three Dhanasar prongs: the substantial merit and national importance of your proposed endeavor, your qualifications and track record to advance it, and why waiving the job offer requirement serves the national interest. Letters from independent experts, press coverage, patents, revenue and funding records, user adoption data, government recognition, and invitations to speak or peer-review are all useful currency. The goal is a portfolio that tells a coherent story, not a scrapbook of loosely related accomplishments.
Step 3: Craft the Petition as a Persuasive Brief, Not a Resume:
A common and costly mistake is treating the I-140 as a formality — uploading documents and letting the evidence “speak for itself.” It does not. USCIS officers review hundreds of petitions and need to be guided through the record. A strong petition opens with a clear narrative of who the applicant is, what they have accomplished, and why that accomplishment matters. For EB-1A, each claimed criterion should be addressed with a dedicated section tying specific exhibits to the regulatory language, followed by a final merits section that synthesizes the evidence into a picture of sustained acclaim. For NIW, the petition must walk the officer through each Dhanasar prong with precision, explaining why the endeavor matters beyond the applicant’s immediate employer or geography. Expert recommendation letters should be customized, specific, and written by individuals with credentials of their own — generic “to whom it may concern” letters from friends rarely move the needle. Premium processing is available for both categories and is usually worth the cost for the speed and the earlier signal on RFEs.
Step 4: Anticipate RFEs and Plan for the Long Game:
Even strong cases frequently receive Requests for Evidence, particularly on the EB-1A “final merits” determination and the NIW “well-positioned to advance” prong. Assume an RFE is possible, and build your initial filing to preempt the questions the officer is most likely to ask. Beyond the petition itself, think about timing: the EB-1A priority date is current for most countries but backlogged for India and China, while EB-2 NIW is backlogged for most chargeability areas. If you are Indian- or Chinese-born, an approved EB-1A with a current or near-current date can dramatically shorten your path to adjustment of status compared to an EB-2 NIW with a decade-long wait. Consider filing concurrently with I-485 where the visa bulletin permits, preserve priority dates across petitions, and keep nonimmigrant status valid as a backup. Above all, start early. The applicants who approach EB-1A and NIW as a multi-year project — deliberately publishing, speaking, building metrics, and cultivating expert relationships — are the ones who ultimately walk away with an approval notice rather than a denial. In an era of heightened adjudicative scrutiny, preparation is not optional; it is the strategy.
USCIS Enforcement Update: Two Plead Guilty in Major H-1B Fraud Conspiracy Case
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that its fraud detection efforts led to guilty pleas by Sampath Rajidi and Sreedhar Mada in a conspiracy to commit H-1B visa fraud case in Sacramento, California. According to court records, Rajidi, who operated S-Team Software Inc. and Uptrend Technologies LLC, worked with Mada, a senior official at the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, to file fraudulent H-1B petitions between June 2020 and January 2023. The petitions falsely claimed that foreign workers would be employed on projects at the University of California, using Mada’s name and position to lend credibility. In reality, the positions did not exist, and the workers never performed services for the university.
After securing H-1B approvals through these false representations, the defendants allegedly placed the workers at third-party client sites, gaining an unfair competitive advantage while reducing the availability of H-1B visas for legitimate employers. The case was investigated by multiple federal agencies, including USCIS FDNS, ICE Homeland Security Investigations, and the Department of State. Both individuals face up to five years in prison and fines of up to $250,000, with sentencing scheduled for July 30, 2026. This case highlights the government’s increasing focus on H-1B compliance, particularly regarding false client placements and non-existent job opportunities, and serves as a strong warning to employers to maintain strict adherence to immigration regulations.Understanding the New $100,000 H-1B Fee—and How to Avoid It
Recent policy developments have introduced a potential $100,000 fee in certain H-1B cap cases, primarily tied to consular notification filings under the new selection framework. The fee is generally expected to apply where a beneficiary is selected in the H-1B lottery but will activate the H-1B status through visa stamping abroad, rather than through a change of status in the United States. The rationale is to discourage speculative filings and ensure that employers are making bona fide job offers for candidates who will actually enter the U.S. workforce. Importantly, this fee does not apply to change of status (COS) filings within the United States, making COS the most strategic way to avoid the additional cost. Employers can also mitigate risk by ensuring that candidates are already in the U.S. in a valid status at the time of filing, allowing for a COS request instead of consular processing. Careful case strategy—such as timing filings, maintaining lawful status, and avoiding unnecessary consular notification—can significantly reduce financial exposure. From a compliance and planning perspective, employers should work closely with immigration counsel to determine the most appropriate filing strategy at the petition stage. Choosing the correct pathway can mean the difference between a standard H-1B filing cost and a substantially higher financial burden. As USCIS continues to tighten oversight, proactive planning and accurate classification of filing types will be critical to both cost control and long-term immigration success.Leveraging Interfiling to Use an Earlier Priority Date from Multiple I-140s
When a foreign national has two approved Form I-140 immigrant petitions, USCIS regulations and policy permit the beneficiary to request that a pending Form I-485 adjustment of status application be matched to the earlier approved I-140 — a process commonly called “interfiling.” Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(e) and USCIS Policy Manual guidance, a beneficiary generally retains the priority date of the earliest approved I-140 petition, provided that petition was not revoked for fraud, willful misrepresentation, or material error, and was not revoked based on a withdrawal filed before the I-140 was approved for 180 days or more. Interfiling allows the adjustment applicant to substitute the later-filed I-485 onto the earlier petition, thereby securing a significantly earlier place in the visa queue without having to refile.
Interfiling is particularly valuable for beneficiaries who initially adjusted under an EB-3 petition and later obtained an EB-2 approval, or who changed employers but retained an approved I-140 from a prior sponsor that remained valid for priority date retention. For example, if a beneficiary has a 2018 EB-3 approval from Employer A and a 2022 EB-2 approval from Employer B, and the EB-2 final action date becomes current, the applicant may file Form I-485 under the EB-2 petition and simultaneously request that USCIS apply the 2018 EB-3 priority date. This can mean the difference between years of continued waiting and immediate eligibility for permanent residence, as well as earlier access to EAD and advance parole benefits for dependents.
To execute an interfile request, counsel typically submits a written letter to the USCIS office with jurisdiction over the pending I-485 (or uploads it via the online case inquiry system for e-filed cases), identifying both I-140 receipt numbers, attaching copies of both approval notices, and explicitly requesting that the earlier priority date be applied and the adjustment application be linked to the later petition. The request should cite the governing regulation, confirm that the earlier I-140 has not been revoked for disqualifying reasons, and include the beneficiary’s A-number, date of birth, and current I-485 receipt number. Supporting documentation — such as evidence that the earlier petition remained valid beyond 180 days of approval — strengthens the request.
Practitioners should confirm the current Visa Bulletin final action and filing dates before interfiling, verify the status of the earlier I-140 in USCIS systems, and counsel the client on the downstream effects on EAD/AP renewals and any pending H-1B extensions beyond the sixth year under AC21 § 106(a). Done correctly, interfiling is one of the most powerful yet underutilized tools in employment-based adjustment practice, and for many beneficiaries caught in backlogged categories, it is the single step that transforms years of waiting into near-term green card issuance.New USCIS FOIA Filing Rules: Mandatory FIRST Portal Process and Key Practice Tips
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has implemented a major procedural change for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act requests, requiring that all submissions be filed electronically through the FOIA Immigration Records System (FIRST) portal effective January 22, 2026. USCIS no longer accepts paper filings, faxes, or emailed requests, making it essential for practitioners to use the online system at first.uscis.gov or through dhs.gov/foia. Attorneys can log in using their existing myUSCIS credentials and initiate a request by selecting the appropriate option, typically “Request for Someone Else’s Immigration Records,” when acting on behalf of a client. When completing a FOIA request through FIRST, practitioners must provide detailed information to ensure proper processing. This includes identifying themselves as the attorney of record, accurately entering client biographical details (such as A-number, date of birth, and immigration history), and clearly specifying the records sought—whether a particular petition or the client’s entire A-file. Importantly, client consent is mandatory and can be completed through uploading a signed Form G-639 or via digital verification through email or text message. Without proper consent, the request will not move forward in the processing queue. Once submitted, the request can be tracked through the “My Requests” section of the FIRST portal. While FOIA requires agencies to respond within 20 business days, practitioners are increasingly experiencing delays, redactions, and administrative closures due to overly broad requests. To avoid issues, it is critical to draft narrowly tailored and well-described requests. In cases of delay or denial, attorneys may pursue administrative appeals or litigation, as FOIA provides legal remedies when agencies fail to comply with statutory timelines or improperly withhold records.Sincerely,
Keshab Raj Seadie, Esq.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. Disclaimer: This newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney for personalized advice.
