On October 14, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published a proposed rule — “Removing Deference to Prior USCIS Determinations of Eligibility,” Docket No. USCIS-2026-0529 — that would change how work-visa extensions are decided. It is a proposal, not a final rule. The current rule remains in force until a final rule is published and takes effect. Public comments are open through November 13, 2026.
Here is what the proposal would do, and why it matters for anyone who will ever renew an O-1.
What deference means today
Under the current regulation, 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5), when USCIS adjudicates a Form I-129 extension request involving the same parties and the same underlying facts, the officer gives deference to the prior approval. The officer can depart from that earlier decision only if there was a material error, a material change, or new material information that adversely affects eligibility.
In plain terms: if your O-1 was approved, a renewal with the same employer and the same facts starts from that approval. The earlier decision counts.
What the proposal would change
The proposal would delete 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) entirely. The eligibility criteria for the O-1 would not change. What would change is the starting point: every extension would be decided fresh, on the evidence in front of the officer, without a regulatory instruction to respect the earlier approval.
DHS’s stated reason is that the statute places the burden of proving eligibility on the petitioner, and that deference in practice can shift that burden to the officer and allow an earlier error to carry forward.
What DHS itself expects to happen
These are the government’s own estimates, published with the proposal:
- About 208,429 Form I-129 petitions a year — roughly 30% of all I-129 filings — currently benefit from deference.
- DHS projects roughly 6,044 additional Requests for Evidence (RFEs) per year if the rule is finalized.
- DHS reports about a 64-day difference in processing time between petitions that receive an RFE and petitions that do not.
More RFEs and longer timelines are not a side effect critics are predicting. They are the outcome the agency itself has priced in.
What this means for O-1 holders specifically
An O-1 extension under a no-deference regime is, in practice, a re-adjudication. The officer can re-weigh whether you qualify — including re-examining the press and published material that supported your first approval.
That has three practical consequences:
Your old press gets read again. Coverage that carried your first petition will be looked at with fresh eyes. Thin, dated, or self-made material is a weaker foundation the second time it is examined.
Continued work needs continued evidence. A renewal case is stronger when it shows what you have done since the last approval — recent, independent coverage of current work, not only the packet that won the first time.
Timelines need more room. If RFEs become more common on extensions, filing early and building the record before the deadline matters more, not less.
What has not changed
Nothing — yet. This is a notice of proposed rulemaking. The deference regulation is still in force, comments are open until November 13, 2026, and DHS must review those comments before any final rule can publish. Anyone who tells you renewals are already being decided under the new approach is getting ahead of the Federal Register.
How we think about renewals
We build press records that are meant to be read more than once: independent editorial coverage, in established publications, with a named author and a publication date, focused on your achievements. That is the standard a first petition is judged by — and it is exactly the standard that holds up if an officer decides your renewal from scratch.
If your O-1 renewal is coming up in the next year, the time to strengthen the record is while you still have runway, not after an RFE arrives.
Sources: Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 197 (October 14, 2026), pp. 65119–65133, FR Doc. 2026-20941; Docket No. USCIS-2026-0529, RIN 1615-AD26. Comments due November 13, 2026 via regulations.gov.