Federal Court Pushes Back on USCIS EB-1A Adjudication Framework

On January 28, 2026, a federal court issued a significant decision limiting USCIS’s authority to deny EB-1A Extraordinary Ability immigrant petitions based on its long-standing “final merits determination” framework. Although the decision is binding only on the parties involved, it directly challenges USCIS’s nationwide EB-1A adjudication practices and may serve as persuasive authority in future cases.

Background

In Mukherji v. USCIS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska ruled that USCIS’s two-step analysis for EB-1A petitions was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that USCIS changed how EB-1A petitions are evaluated without engaging in the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process.

Under the existing framework, USCIS first determines whether a petitioner meets the regulatory criteria (either through a major one-time award or by satisfying at least three of ten listed criteria). USCIS then applies a second layer of review, known as the “final merits determination,” which weighs additional policy-based concepts such as the “totality of the evidence” and “sustained national or international acclaim.”

The court concluded that this second step imposes an extra substantive requirement not found in the statute or regulations and was never properly adopted through formal rulemaking. As a result, the court vacated the denial and ordered approval of the petition.

Implications for Employers and EB-1A Beneficiaries or Self-petitioners

The ruling underscores that EB-1A adjudications must be anchored in the regulatory criteria, rather than additional policy-driven or subjective standards. While USCIS has not yet revised its adjudicatory framework and continues to apply the two-step analysis, the court’s reasoning may influence future adjudications, appeals, and litigation strategies. For both employers and EB-1A self-petitioners, the decision provides stronger grounds to challenge denials that rely primarily on the “final merits determination” rather than the regulatory requirements.  It may also prompt a reassessment of prior denials issued at the second step of the analysis, including consideration of motions, appeals, or refiling strategies. At the same time, the decision does not lower the evidentiary burden for EB-1A petitions: careful case preparation, strong supporting evidence, and clear documentation remain essential to a successful outcome.

The Department of Homeland Security is also considering proposed regulation

This alert is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.