A federal district court in Nebraska issued a ruling in late January 2026 that’s worth knowing about if you’re pursuing an EB-1A. In Mukherji v. Miller, the court sided with an Indian journalist who had applied for an EB-1A green card, the employment-based immigrant visa for foreign nationals with extraordinary ability who want to become permanent residents. USCIS had agreed she met five of the ten regulatory criteria, more than the three required. But the agency denied her petition anyway, concluding she had not sustained her national acclaim past 2015. The court found that reasoning to be legally flawed, vacated the denial, and ordered USCIS to approve the petition outright.
The ruling focuses on something called the “final merits determination,” the second step USCIS uses when evaluating EB-1A petitions. This two-step approach was never enacted through formal rulemaking. Instead, USCIS adopted it in 2010 through an internal memo, essentially following the lead of a Ninth Circuit case known as Kazarian. The Nebraska court found this procedurally improper. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies have to go through a public notice-and-comment process before making substantive rule changes. USCIS did not do that, and the court noted that the agency had classified the two-step approach as a substantive rule change back in 1995, then quietly dropped that position years later without explanation.
Beyond the procedural problems, the court took issue with how USCIS applied the standard to the plaintiff specifically. The officer never explained what evidence would have been sufficient, what “sustained” acclaim actually required, or why her post-2015 work did not count. The court pointed out that nothing in the statute requires someone to keep winning awards indefinitely to prove they belong in the extraordinary ability category.
This ruling does not change USCIS policy overnight. The agency has not revised its procedures, and Kazarian remains good law in the Ninth Circuit. But Mukherji gives applicants a real foothold. If USCIS concedes that someone meets the regulatory criteria and then denies the petition anyway based on ambiguous “final merits” reasoning, this case offers a direct argument that the agency overstepped. It is useful ammunition for responding to Requests for Evidence, challenging Notices of Intent to Deny, filing appeals with the Administrative Appeals Office, or pursuing federal litigation.
For anyone in the middle of an EB-1A process, or who has faced a denial despite strong credentials, this case is worth knowing about. Courts have been increasingly willing to look closely at agency reasoning rather than defer to it, particularly after the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision, which pulled back significantly on the old presumption that judges should simply trust agency interpretations of ambiguous law. The combination of Loper Bright and Mukherji suggest the legal ground is shifting in ways that could benefit well-qualified applicants.
