Table of Content
A federal court in Nebraska just issued a ruling that could reshape how EB-1A petitions are adjudicated across the country.
I have been practicing immigration law for 22 years. I have seen the EB-1A category evolve, watched USCIS change its approach, and counseled hundreds of applicants through this process. This decision in Mukherji v. Miller is one of the most significant I have read in years.
Let me break down what happened and why it matters if you are pursuing an EB-1A.
The Facts
A journalist from India filed an EB-1A petition. USCIS reviewed her evidence and acknowledged she satisfied five of the ten regulatory criteria. You only need three.
Despite this, USCIS denied her petition.
The reason? At the "final merits determination" stage, the officer concluded that her recognition and awards were concentrated prior to 2016. According to USCIS, she had not demonstrated "sustained" national or international acclaim.
She challenged the denial in federal court.
What the Court Found
Judge Bataillon ruled in her favor, and his reasoning goes far beyond this single case.
First, he found that the two-step framework USCIS has been using since 2010 was never properly adopted. The agency treated this as a substantive rule change back in 1995 but never completed the required notice and comment rulemaking. Instead, they implemented it through a policy memorandum after the Ninth Circuit decided Kazarian. For over fifteen years, USCIS has been applying a standard that was never established through proper administrative procedure.
Second, the court found no statutory basis for requiring applicants to maintain continuous, ongoing recognition. Here is the key language from the decision:
"Nor does the statute say anything about an individual being required to stay indefinitely at the top of their field."
I have seen countless petitions where applicants had extraordinary accomplishments earlier in their careers, only to face skepticism by USCIS because their most notable recognition was not recent enough. This court is saying the statute does not support that approach.
Third, the court found that USCIS failed to articulate specific, legal reasons for the denial. The agency's own Policy Manual requires this. When an officer cannot clearly explain why an applicant who meets the criteria still falls short, that is the definition of arbitrary decision making.
What This Means for You
If you are preparing an EB-1A petition, document your achievements thoroughly. The regulatory criteria exist as objective benchmarks. Meeting them should carry real weight.
If you achieved recognition earlier in your career and worry that your accomplishments are "too old," this decision provides support for the position that extraordinary ability does not expire simply because your biggest awards came years ago.
If you have been denied at the final merits stage despite meeting three or more criteria, this case offers a potential basis for challenging that denial. The court did not just send this back for another review. It ordered USCIS to approve the petition.
A Note of Caution
This is a district court decision in Nebraska. It is not binding on USCIS nationwide, and the government will almost certainly appeal to the Eighth Circuit.
But here is the bigger picture. We are in a post-Loper Bright environment where courts are no longer required to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Judges are looking more closely at whether agencies followed proper procedures and whether their decisions have actual statutory support.
I expect we will see more decisions like this one.
What You Can Do Now
If you have received a denial, you only have 33 days from the date of denial to file an appeal. But that is not your only option. You can also submit a new petition citing this judgment as supporting authority.
Given how quickly this area of law is evolving, it may be worth waiting to see how the appeal unfolds before making a move. Timing matters here.
The Bottom Line
For years, EB-1A applicants who met 3 or more extraordinary ability criteria were approved. The new reality is here - You check every box, submit strong evidence, and still get denied because an officer subjectively decides you are not “at the very top of your field”.
This ruling says that approach has limits. If you meet the regulatory criteria, the agency cannot simply wave its hand and say you still do not qualify without explaining exactly why and pointing to actual legal authority.
I will be watching this case closely as it moves through the appeals process. If you have questions about your own EB-1A situation or have faced a similar denial, my inbox is open.
Co-authored with Shradha N Mathur, who works with me on EB-1A strategy and petition development.
Case: Mukherji v. Miller, 4:24-cv-03170 (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026)
A federal court in Nebraska just issued a ruling that could reshape how EB-1A petitions are adjudicated across the country.
I have been practicing immigration law for 22 years. I have seen the EB-1A category evolve, watched USCIS change its approach, and counseled hundreds of applicants through this process. This decision in Mukherji v. Miller is one of the most significant I have read in years.
Let me break down what happened and why it matters if you are pursuing an EB-1A.
The Facts
A journalist from India filed an EB-1A petition. USCIS reviewed her evidence and acknowledged she satisfied five of the ten regulatory criteria. You only need three.
Despite this, USCIS denied her petition.
The reason? At the "final merits determination" stage, the officer concluded that her recognition and awards were concentrated prior to 2016. According to USCIS, she had not demonstrated "sustained" national or international acclaim.
She challenged the denial in federal court.
What the Court Found
Judge Bataillon ruled in her favor, and his reasoning goes far beyond this single case.
First, he found that the two-step framework USCIS has been using since 2010 was never properly adopted. The agency treated this as a substantive rule change back in 1995 but never completed the required notice and comment rulemaking. Instead, they implemented it through a policy memorandum after the Ninth Circuit decided Kazarian. For over fifteen years, USCIS has been applying a standard that was never established through proper administrative procedure.
Second, the court found no statutory basis for requiring applicants to maintain continuous, ongoing recognition. Here is the key language from the decision:
"Nor does the statute say anything about an individual being required to stay indefinitely at the top of their field."
I have seen countless petitions where applicants had extraordinary accomplishments earlier in their careers, only to face skepticism by USCIS because their most notable recognition was not recent enough. This court is saying the statute does not support that approach.
Third, the court found that USCIS failed to articulate specific, legal reasons for the denial. The agency's own Policy Manual requires this. When an officer cannot clearly explain why an applicant who meets the criteria still falls short, that is the definition of arbitrary decision making.
What This Means for You
If you are preparing an EB-1A petition, document your achievements thoroughly. The regulatory criteria exist as objective benchmarks. Meeting them should carry real weight.
If you achieved recognition earlier in your career and worry that your accomplishments are "too old," this decision provides support for the position that extraordinary ability does not expire simply because your biggest awards came years ago.
If you have been denied at the final merits stage despite meeting three or more criteria, this case offers a potential basis for challenging that denial. The court did not just send this back for another review. It ordered USCIS to approve the petition.
A Note of Caution
This is a district court decision in Nebraska. It is not binding on USCIS nationwide, and the government will almost certainly appeal to the Eighth Circuit.
But here is the bigger picture. We are in a post-Loper Bright environment where courts are no longer required to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Judges are looking more closely at whether agencies followed proper procedures and whether their decisions have actual statutory support.
I expect we will see more decisions like this one.
What You Can Do Now
If you have received a denial, you only have 33 days from the date of denial to file an appeal. But that is not your only option. You can also submit a new petition citing this judgment as supporting authority.
Given how quickly this area of law is evolving, it may be worth waiting to see how the appeal unfolds before making a move. Timing matters here.
The Bottom Line
For years, EB-1A applicants who met 3 or more extraordinary ability criteria were approved. The new reality is here - You check every box, submit strong evidence, and still get denied because an officer subjectively decides you are not “at the very top of your field”.
This ruling says that approach has limits. If you meet the regulatory criteria, the agency cannot simply wave its hand and say you still do not qualify without explaining exactly why and pointing to actual legal authority.
I will be watching this case closely as it moves through the appeals process. If you have questions about your own EB-1A situation or have faced a similar denial, my inbox is open.
Co-authored with Shradha N Mathur, who works with me on EB-1A strategy and petition development.
Case: Mukherji v. Miller, 4:24-cv-03170 (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026)
Table of Contents
Quick Resources
