The Department of Homeland Security has listed "Petition for Immigrant Worker Reforms" (RIN 1615-AC85) in its Spring 2025 Unified Regulatory Agenda. Draft regulations are anticipated in 2026. The proposed changes would affect every employment-based green card category — but the most consequential impact falls on EB-1A extraordinary ability and EB-2 National Interest Waiver petitions.
This article explains what is actually changing, what is not, and why the filing calculus for qualified professionals favours acting now rather than waiting.
What is RIN 1615-AC85?
RIN 1615-AC85 is a proposed rulemaking by USCIS to modernise and update the regulations governing employment-based immigrant petitions across the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Many of the current provisions were written more than thirty years ago and have not kept pace with how modern businesses, research institutions, and professional careers actually operate.
The rule would do three things. First, it would codify into federal regulation the internal policy memoranda that USCIS adjudicators currently use to evaluate petitions — including the Kazarian two-step framework for EB-1A and the Dhanasar three-prong test for EB-2 NIW. Second, it would establish more detailed evidentiary requirements for specific criteria. Third, it would strengthen programme integrity through expanded site-visit authority and fraud detection measures.
What would change for EB-1A petitions?
The proposed rule is expected to raise evidentiary thresholds across several of the ten regulatory criteria. The current standard requires petitioners to satisfy at least three of ten criteria, followed by a final merits determination under the Kazarian framework. The rule would not change the "three of ten" threshold — but it would tighten what counts as satisfying each criterion.
Specifically, the rule is expected to codify stricter standards for what constitutes a "nationally or internationally recognised" award, what qualifies as a "distinguished" organisation for the critical role criterion, and what level of documentation is required to demonstrate "original contributions of major significance." Publications, awards, and evidence of real-world impact would all face more granular documentation requirements.
The final merits determination — the second step of the Kazarian framework, where USCIS evaluates whether the totality of evidence establishes that the petitioner has "risen to the very top of the field" — would also be codified with clearer benchmarks. This is where many petitions currently succeed or fail, and the proposed rule would make the standard more explicit.
What would change for EB-2 NIW petitions?
The Dhanasar three-prong test would be formally codified into federal regulation for the first time. Currently, Dhanasar exists as an Administrative Appeals Office precedent decision — binding on adjudicators but not written into the regulatory text. Codification would make the standard more uniform but could also introduce more rigid interpretive guidelines.
The proposed endeavour framework — the most critical single decision in any NIW petition — would face heightened scrutiny. Petitioners would likely need to demonstrate more specific connections between their proposed work and documented U.S. federal priorities, with more detailed plans for how the endeavour would be advanced.
What is not changing?
Several things are not affected by the proposed rule. The fundamental eligibility structure — three of ten criteria for EB-1A, the Dhanasar three-prong test for NIW — remains in place. Both pathways remain self-petitioned. No job offer, no employer sponsor, and no PERM labour certification are required. Premium processing remains available. The priority date is still established on the day USCIS receives the I-140.
The rule is also not yet operative. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has not been published. A public comment period will follow publication. The final rule is not expected to take effect before late 2026 at the earliest — and could be delayed further depending on the volume and substance of public comments.
Why the filing calculus favours acting now
Petitions filed before the final rule takes effect are assessed against current standards. Once new rules are finalised, the bar rises for all petitions filed thereafter. This creates a clear window: professionals who file now submit under a more favourable framework than those who wait.
The priority date — which governs queue position for the green card — is established the day USCIS receives the I-140 petition. Every month of delay in filing is a month added to the back of the queue. This is true regardless of when the petition is ultimately approved.
For professionals with strong records who are considering an EB-1A or NIW petition, the strategic position is straightforward: file now, under current standards, and secure the priority date. The evidentiary environment will not become more favourable.
What Burlington Consult recommends
Burlington Consult advises qualified professionals to file under the current framework rather than wait for regulatory clarity. The firm files both EB-1A and EB-2 NIW petitions simultaneously as standard practice — preserving the same priority date across both pathways and creating strategic redundancy.
Every engagement begins with a full assessment of the petitioner's specific profile, the strongest available field of endeavour, and the most defensible criterion mapping. This approach is designed to produce petitions that satisfy not only the current standard but would also withstand the stricter standards the proposed rule contemplates.