---

USCIS Increased Premium Processing Fees for Employment-Based Petitions Effective March 1, 2026

The adjustment follows a final regulation published on January 12, 2026, which updates premium processing fees to account for inflation. USCIS reviews and adjusts these fees on a biennial basis, with the previous adjustment having occurred in February 2024.

Under the new fee structure, the premium processing fee for Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers) and most Form I-129 (Petition for Nonimmigrant Workers) will increase from $2,805 to $2,965, representing a $160 increase.

Other premium processing fee changes include:

• Form I-129 (H-2B and R-1 petitions): increasing from $1,685 to $1,780
• Form I-539 (Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status): increasing from $1,965 to $2,075
• Form I-765 (F-1 Optional Practical Training – OPT): increasing from $1,685 to $1,780

Premium processing allows petitioners to request expedited adjudication of certain immigration petitions and applications by paying an additional fee, with USCIS guaranteeing processing within a specified timeframe.

Petitioners planning to file employment-based petitions that require expedited adjudication should ensure that the correct premium processing fee is included for any requests postmarked on or after March 1, 2026, as incorrect fees may result in rejection or delays.

---

DHS Proposes Rule to Strengthen Screening of Asylum Seekers and Limit Work Permit Eligibility

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced a proposed rule aimed at strengthening the screening process for asylum seekers and reducing what the agency describes as incentives for filing fraudulent asylum claims. The proposed changes would significantly affect the eligibility for employment authorization for individuals with pending asylum applications.

According to DHS, the rule is intended to reduce the number of meritless asylum filings by tightening the requirements for asylum applicants who seek work authorization while their cases are pending. DHS officials argue that the current system allows individuals to file asylum claims primarily to obtain employment authorization, which they believe contributes to a growing backlog in the immigration system.

A DHS spokesperson stated that the proposed rule seeks to restore integrity to the asylum process and ensure that the system prioritizes individuals who genuinely require protection. Under the proposal, asylum applicants would not automatically be eligible for work authorization while their applications are under review. The agency believes that removing this incentive could discourage fraudulent or frivolous claims.

DHS noted that applications for employment authorization based on pending asylum cases have reached record levels, placing significant strain on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Currently, USCIS has more than 1.4 million pending affirmative asylum applications, a number comparable to the entire population of the state of New Hampshire.

If finalized, the proposed rule would modify the filing and eligibility requirements for employment authorization documents (EADs) based on pending asylum applications. DHS stated that these changes would allow the agency to focus more resources on adjudicating asylum cases and reducing the existing backlog.

The rule is part of a broader effort by the administration to strengthen the vetting process for asylum applicants and ensure that the U.S. asylum system prioritizes individuals seeking refuge from genuine persecution or danger.

The proposed rule will be published for public comment before any final regulations are adopted.

Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups are expected to closely analyze the proposal, as changes to employment authorization eligibility could significantly impact asylum applicants currently awaiting decisions on their cases.

---

USCIS Assists Federal Investigation Leading to Immigration Fraud Arrests in New York

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently assisted federal authorities in a major immigration fraud investigation that resulted in the indictment and arrest of four individuals accused of operating a fraudulent immigration law scheme in the New York area.

According to federal prosecutors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the defendants face multiple charges, including wire fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and impersonating U.S. government officials, including immigration authorities. If convicted, each defendant could face up to 20 years in federal prison.

The defendants allegedly operated a fake immigration law firm called “CM Bufete De Abogados Consultoria Migratoria.” Prosecutors say the group advertised their services primarily on Facebook, targeting immigrants seeking legal assistance with their immigration cases. Victims were reportedly charged fees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars for fraudulent legal services.

Investigators allege that none of the defendants were licensed attorneys in the United States. Instead, they allegedly created fraudulent documents that appeared to be issued by U.S. government agencies and falsely claimed to represent clients in immigration matters.

In some cases, the defendants reportedly conducted fake immigration court hearings and asylum interviews via videoconference, where individuals impersonated immigration judges, USCIS officers, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. The impersonators allegedly wore judicial robes or law enforcement uniforms and used backgrounds designed to resemble official government offices and courtrooms.

Authorities say the scheme caused serious consequences for victims. In at least one case, a victim missed a legitimate immigration court hearing because she believed her case had already been resolved through the fraudulent proceedings, resulting in a deportation order that was later reversed.

Three of the defendants were arrested at Newark Liberty International Airport while attempting to board a flight to Colombia, and another was arrested at a restaurant in New Jersey. Investigators have identified more than $100,000 in fraudulent transactions connected to the scheme.

Federal authorities emphasized that the charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

USCIS officials noted that the agency continues to work closely with law enforcement to combat immigration fraud and protect vulnerable individuals from fraudulent schemes that exploit those seeking immigration benefits in the United States.

---

EB-1A: Your Strategic Path to a Green Card
How Highly Skilled Professionals Can Skip the EB-2/EB-3 Backlog and Win Approval
By Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.  |  GreenCardMaker.com  |  25+ Years · 100,000+ Cases Filed

The EB-2/EB-3 Backlog Crisis — and What You Can Do About It:

If you are an Indian or Chinese national working in the United States on an H-1B visa, you already know the painful arithmetic: the EB-2 and EB-3 priority dates for India are backed up by decades. Workers who filed their I-140 petitions in 2013 are only now becoming current. For many skilled professionals, this translates to an agonizing 20-to-40-year wait before they can file an adjustment of status — all while remaining tethered to a single employer, unable to freely change jobs, start a business, or plan a stable future for their families.

There is, however, a powerful alternative that most applicants and their employers overlook: the EB-1A classification — Alien of Extraordinary Ability. Unlike EB-2 and EB-3, the EB-1A category is not subject to per-country backlogs. It is current for virtually every nationality, every month of every year. And unlike the EB-1C (multinational manager/executive) or the EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver), the EB-1A requires no employer sponsorship, no labor certification, and no Department of Labor involvement. You file it yourself — and you can become a permanent resident in months, not decades.

The challenge is that many attorneys misunderstand the EB-1A standard or counsel clients away from it prematurely. After more than 25 years of practice and hundreds of successful EB-1A approvals, we have learned that far more professionals qualify for this category than they — or their employers — realize.

What Is the EB-1A Standard?

USCIS defines extraordinary ability as a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. To meet this standard, a petitioner must satisfy at least three of ten regulatory criteria — or, alternatively, demonstrate a one-time achievement such as a Nobel Prize, Oscar, Pulitzer, or Olympic medal (which almost no one has). For the rest of us, the three-out-of-ten pathway is the route.

Below is the complete list of EB-1A criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3):

#	Criterion	What USCIS Looks For
1	Awards / Prizes	National/international prizes or awards for excellence in your field
2	Membership	Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
3	Published Material	Articles about you and your work in major trade publications or media
4	Judging Others	Serving as a judge of the work of others in your field
5	Original Contributions	Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business contributions of major significance
6	Scholarly Articles	Authorship of scholarly articles in professional journals
7	Critical Role / Display	Leading/critical role in distinguished organizations OR display of work at prestigious venues
8	High Salary	Evidence of commanding a high salary or remuneration relative to peers
9	Commercial Success	Commercial successes in the performing arts (if applicable)
10	Other Comparable Evidence	Comparable evidence if the above criteria do not readily apply to your occupation

Meeting three criteria is necessary but not sufficient. After Matter of Dhanasar (AAO 2016) and the subsequent Kazarian v. USCIS framework, USCIS performs a "final merits determination" — a holistic assessment of whether the totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. This is where strategic packaging becomes critical.

Why More Professionals Qualify Than They Think:

The single most important insight from our practice is this: professionals working for multinational corporations, established technology companies, financial institutions, engineering firms, and research universities are often already living the life of an EB-1A-caliber professional — they simply have not documented it properly. Consider the following common profile:

The Typical Hidden EB-1A Candidate:

A senior software engineer, data scientist, financial analyst, or biotech researcher at a Fortune 500 company or top-tier consulting firm. Holds a master's degree or Ph.D. Earns a salary in the top 10–15% for their occupation. Has led or played a critical role in a product, platform, or project used by thousands or millions. Has been invited to review code, papers, or project proposals for colleagues or industry groups. Has been quoted in industry media, cited by peers, or presented at a professional conference. May hold one or two patents.

Does that sound like you? If so, read on. The criteria are not as exotic as they appear — and with the right attorney and the right documentation strategy, three criteria can often be established with evidence you already have.

Building Your Case: The Five Most Accessible Criteria:

1. Critical Role in a Distinguished Organization (Criterion 7)

• This is frequently the strongest criterion for corporate professionals. USCIS evaluates whether you have performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. Almost every major technology company, bank, hospital system, or university qualifies as "distinguished."
• What makes a role "critical"? It is not your job title — it is your function. A principal engineer whose code runs core infrastructure, a data scientist whose model reduced churn by 30%, a portfolio manager who managed a $2B book of business, a clinical researcher whose trial design was adopted company-wide — these are critical roles. The key is to extract specific, quantified contributions and contrast your level of responsibility against peers at the same seniority.
• Documentation strategy: Obtain a detailed employer support letter from a senior executive (VP-level or above, not just your direct manager) that explicitly describes your contributions in the context of the organization's broader mission. Supplement with org charts, project documentation, performance reviews, and any press coverage of products or initiatives you led.

2. High Salary Relative to Others in the Field (Criterion 8)

• This criterion is often underutilized, yet it is one of the most straightforward to establish for corporate professionals. If your total compensation — base salary, bonus, stock grants, and benefits — places you significantly above the median or average for your occupation and geographic area, you have evidence of extraordinary ability by one of the most objective measures available.
• Use Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data, salary surveys from Robert Half, Levels.fyi (for technology), or Radford to establish the comparison benchmark. A salary at or above the 90th percentile for your occupation in your metro area is compelling. Total compensation at 1.5x to 2x the median is often sufficient when combined with a well-crafted argument.
• Do not limit this analysis to base salary. RSUs, annual bonuses, and signing packages are all part of the picture — and for senior professionals at major companies, they often tell a dramatically different story than base salary alone.

3. Original Contributions of Major Significance (Criterion 5)

• This is the criterion that intimidates people most — and the one that attorneys most often mishandle. You do not need to have cured a disease or invented the internet. USCIS looks for contributions that have been recognized and adopted by others in the field, or that have had demonstrable impact beyond your immediate employer.
• Patents are powerful evidence here. Even a single granted patent — particularly one that has been cited by others, licensed, or incorporated into a commercial product — can anchor a Criterion 5 argument. But patents are not required. A proprietary methodology that has been presented at conferences and adopted by other firms, an open-source library with substantial downloads and GitHub stars, a technical white paper widely cited in industry, or a process improvement that has been replicated across your industry all speak to original contributions of major significance.
• The key word is "significance." Every contribution argument must be tied to real-world impact, third-party recognition, or industry adoption. Letters from independent experts in your field — colleagues at other firms, professors, researchers — attesting to the significance of your work carry enormous weight with USCIS adjudicators.

4. Published Material About You or Your Work (Criterion 3)

• This criterion does not require a front-page New York Times profile. Trade publications, industry newsletters, company press releases picked up by wire services, podcast appearances, LinkedIn articles with significant engagement, and features in professional association magazines all qualify — provided they discuss you and your work specifically, not just your employer or team.
• Many professionals are surprised to discover they have already been covered in industry media. A search of your name combined with the names of projects, products, or companies you have been associated with often surfaces qualifying coverage. If coverage is thin, this criterion can be proactively built through media outreach, thought leadership articles, and contributions to industry publications in the months preceding the petition.

5. Judging the Work of Others (Criterion 4)

• This is frequently the "easiest" third criterion to add to a strong two-criterion case — and one of the most commonly overlooked. Judging encompasses any role in evaluating the work of peers: serving on a peer review panel for a scientific journal, reviewing conference paper submissions, evaluating grant proposals, scoring hackathon projects, sitting on a thesis committee, reviewing patent applications for a company's IP committee, or serving as a technical screener or hiring committee member evaluating candidates' work.
• Critically, you do not need to have been compensated for this work, and you do not need extensive experience — a handful of documented review invitations, with evidence that you were selected for your expertise, is sufficient to establish the criterion. Secure letters from the editors, conference chairs, or grant administrators confirming your participation.

Strategic Add-Ons That Tip the Scale:

While three criteria are the technical threshold, experienced practitioners know that a well-crafted EB-1A petition typically presents four, five, or even six criteria — not because USCIS requires it, but because the "final merits determination" is holistic. A petition that demonstrates extraordinary ability across multiple dimensions is far more resistant to an RFE or denial than one that barely clears three.

Here are the most valuable "add-ons" we recommend to professionals building their EB-1A cases:

• Conference presentations and panelist invitations: If you have spoken at industry conferences — even once, even at a regional event — this supports Criterion 3 (published material / publicity) and strengthens the overall narrative of recognized expertise. Being invited as a panelist, moderator, or keynote speaker is particularly strong because it requires a third party to identify you as an authority.
• Quality publications: Scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals, widely-read industry publications, or respected technical blogs advance Criterion 6 and support the contributions argument. Even two or three well-placed publications, particularly if they have been cited by others, can be transformative for a petition.
• Patents: Granted patents — especially those that have been cited in subsequent patents, licensed, or implemented in commercial products — are among the most persuasive pieces of EB-1A evidence available. A single commercially significant patent can single-handedly establish Criteria 4 (examination process), 5 (original contributions), and support the high-salary narrative.
• Expert reference letters: The single most impactful investment in an EB-1A petition is a carefully curated set of five to eight expert reference letters from independent authorities in your field — not your current employer, not your colleagues, but researchers, professors, executives, and industry leaders who can speak to the significance of your contributions from an arm's-length perspective.
• Awards and recognition: Internal company awards ("Engineer of the Year," "Top Contributor"), external industry recognitions, and even competitive fellowship selections support Criterion 1 when properly contextualized. Peer-selected honors within professional associations are particularly effective.

The Two-Step Analysis and Why Packaging Matters:

After the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kazarian v. USCIS (2010), adjudicators are required to perform a two-step analysis. First, they assess whether the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence for at least three criteria. Second — and this is where most pro se petitions and inadequately prepared attorney filings fail — they make a "final merits determination" considering whether the evidence, taken as a whole, demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and that the person is among the small percentage at the top of their field.

This second step is where narrative construction and evidence packaging become decisive. An EB-1A petition is not merely a checklist — it is a legal argument. The cover letter and legal brief must weave together the individual criteria into a coherent portrait of an exceptional professional whose impact has been recognized by peers, employers, and the broader industry. Facts that seem modest in isolation become powerful when properly contextualized.

Consider the difference between these two framings of the same candidate:

• Weak framing: "The beneficiary is a software engineer who earns $180,000 per year, has one patent, and reviewed two journal submissions."
• Strong framing: "The beneficiary is a principal machine learning engineer whose patented anomaly detection architecture has been deployed across four Fortune 100 clients, reducing fraud losses by over $40 million annually. His compensation, which places him in the 93rd percentile for ML engineers in the New York metro area, reflects the extraordinary value his employer and the market place on his expertise. His selection as a peer reviewer for the Journal of Machine Learning Research — a highly selective publication receiving thousands of submissions — confirms his standing as a recognized authority within the global ML community."

Same facts. Radically different petitions. The difference is in the attorney's ability to extract, synthesize, and present the evidence in its most compelling form.

The Self-Petition Advantage: Freedom from Employer Control:

One of the most significant but underappreciated features of the EB-1A is that it is a self-petition under INA § 203(b)(1)(A). You file it on your own behalf. You do not need an employer to sponsor you. You do not need a job offer. You do not need a PERM labor certification. You are not tied to a specific employer, job title, or location.

This has profound practical implications. EB-1A approval does not expose your employer to compliance obligations or trigger notice requirements. You can change jobs, get promoted, start a business, or take time off between filing and approval without jeopardizing your petition. For professionals who have felt trapped by employer-sponsored EB-2 or EB-3 petitions — unable to pursue better opportunities for fear of losing their place in the queue — the EB-1A offers genuine career freedom.

There is one important caveat: to adjust status to permanent resident (or obtain an immigrant visa abroad), the beneficiary must demonstrate that they intend to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability. This is a flexible standard — you do not need a specific job offer, and the "area" is interpreted broadly — but it is a component of the final approval process that must be addressed.

Timing: When to File and How to Strengthen Your Profile:

The best time to file an EB-1A is when you can present the strongest possible case — not necessarily right now. We regularly work with clients over a period of 6 to 24 months to strategically build their profile before filing: securing additional conference invitations, placing thought-leadership articles in targeted publications, documenting judging and review activities, and collecting expert reference letters from high-caliber third parties.

That said, if you already meet three or more criteria with compelling evidence, there is little reason to wait. USCIS premium processing is available for EB-1A I-140 petitions, with a 15-business-day adjudication guarantee. For Indian nationals with a current priority date or those maintaining H-1B status, an approved I-140 also unlocks H-1B extensions beyond the 6-year cap and provides critical "green card portability" protections under AC21.

Common Mistakes That Lead to RFEs and Denials:

In our experience reviewing cases filed by other attorneys and pro se petitioners, the same errors appear repeatedly:

• Filing with only three criteria and thin evidence: Technically sufficient, but highly vulnerable to an RFE. A strong petition presents at least four criteria and overwhelming evidence for each.
• Failing to address the final merits standard: Many petitions satisfy the criteria count but never argue why the petitioner is "among the small percentage" at the top of the field. This gap is fatal in the second Kazarian step.
• Using employer letters as the sole evidence: USCIS is skeptical of self-serving employer attestations. Independent expert letters from arm's-length authorities are far more persuasive.
• Mischaracterizing the role: Describing a managerial role in generic terms without establishing criticality, scope, and impact within the organization.
• Overlooking the high-salary criterion: Total compensation analysis is rarely submitted, yet for many corporate professionals it is the most straightforward criterion to prove.
• Weak expert letters: Form letters, letters from supervisors or collaborators, letters that describe the field rather than the individual, or letters from experts who are not themselves recognized authorities carry minimal weight.
• Submitting evidence without context: Raw evidence — a patent number, a conference program, a pay stub — must be explained. Every exhibit must be accompanied by argument explaining its significance within the EB-1A framework.

25 Years of EB-1A Excellence — Let Us Evaluate Your Case:

At the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. — GreenCardMaker.com — we have been navigating the complexities of business immigration for more than 25 years. We have filed hundreds of EB-1A petitions and know from experience exactly how to package a professional's credentials to meet USCIS's demanding standard.

We work with engineers, data scientists, physicians, researchers, finance professionals, architects, and executives across industries. Our approach is methodical: we begin with a detailed credential assessment, identify the strongest criteria, develop a strategic roadmap to build any gaps in the record, draft a comprehensive legal brief, and curate a complete evidence package designed to withstand scrutiny.

Your Next Steps:

• ✔️ Schedule a confidential EB-1A eligibility consultation with our team
• ✔️ Receive a personalized criterion-by-criterion assessment of your qualifications
• ✔️ Understand your realistic timeline to green card approval — often 6 to 18 months
• ✔️ Stop waiting in a line that may not move in your lifetime

Visit GreenCardMaker.com or call our Manhattan office to get started.

 Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.| GreenCardMaker.com | Manhattan, New York | 25+ Years | 100,000+ Cases

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney regarding your specific circumstances.

---

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.