A recent federal court decision from Nebraska has sent a strong signal to USCIS about how EB-1A Extraordinary Ability petitions must be adjudicated.

In Mukherji v. Miller, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that USCIS unlawfully denied an EB-1A petition and ordered the agency to approve it. This outcome is rare and significant, especially for professionals who have faced denials despite meeting multiple EB-1A criteria.

This case matters because it addresses how USCIS applies the final stage of EB-1A review and where the agency’s discretion legally ends.

The petitioner, Anahita Mukherji, is an Indian national and journalist who filed an EB-1A I-140 petition in March 2024.

USCIS acknowledged that she satisfied five of the ten EB-1A regulatory criteria, even though only three are required at the first stage of review. Despite this, USCIS denied the petition at the second stage, often referred to as the “final merits determination.”

The agency argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim after 2015.

The petitioner challenged the denial in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that USCIS acted arbitrarily, ignored evidence, and applied an unlawful standard.

On January 28, 2026, the court agreed.

The court did not dispute that USCIS can review the totality of evidence at the second stage of EB-1A adjudication. What the court rejected was how USCIS applied that review.

The judge found that USCIS:

• Applied a “final merits determination” standard that functions like a binding rule
• Failed to adopt that rule through required notice and comment procedures
• Ignored or discounted evidence without adequate explanation
• Treated EB-1A eligibility as requiring constant, ongoing recognition

The court emphasized that immigration agencies must follow the law as written. They cannot introduce new substantive requirements without proper legal authority.

One of the most important aspects of the ruling was the court’s rejection of USCIS’s expectation that an applicant must continuously remain at the very top of their field indefinitely.

The judge made it clear that the EB-1A statute does not require a person to maintain nonstop awards, publications, or headline level recognition year after year.

Careers do not work that way, and the law does not demand it.

This finding is especially relevant for professionals whose most visible achievements occurred during a particular phase of their career but whose impact continues.

Most EB-1A lawsuits end with a remand, meaning USCIS is told to reconsider the case.

That did not happen here.

The court vacated the denial and ordered USCIS to approve the petition, stating that there was nothing left for the agency to reconsider under the law.

This signals that the court found no lawful basis for denial once the evidence was properly evaluated.

This decision does not lower the EB-1A standard. The bar remains high.

What it does change is the conversation around unfair denials.

If USCIS acknowledges that an applicant meets multiple EB-1A criteria but still denies the case using vague or shifting reasoning, that denial may be vulnerable to challenge.

For applicants, this reinforces several points:

• Meeting the criteria matters
• Evidence must be tied clearly to legal standards
• Final stage denials are not immune from review
• Litigation can be a real option in the right case

At Keller Law Group, EB-1A petitions are handled with a strategy first mindset.

Each case is prepared as if it may be reviewed by a federal judge, not just an adjudicator. That means:

• Careful alignment with statutory and regulatory language
• Evidence framed to withstand final stage scrutiny
• Clear documentation of sustained impact and recognition
• Honest assessment of strengths, risks, and timing

We do not rely on volume or generic templates. EB-1A cases require precision, narrative control, and legal clarity.

Does this case make EB-1A easier to get approved?

No. The legal standard has not changed. This case confirms that USCIS must apply the standard lawfully and consistently.

Can USCIS still deny EB-1A petitions?

Yes. USCIS can deny cases that do not meet the statutory requirements. What it cannot do is deny strong cases using unsupported or extra legal reasoning.

If my EB-1A was denied, do I have options?

Possibly. Options may include a motion, appeal, refile, or federal court challenge. The right path depends on why the case was denied and what evidence is in the record.

Do I need to be famous to qualify for EB-1A?

No. Many successful EB-1A applicants are not public figures. What matters is documented impact, recognition, and contribution at a national or international level.

Can Keller Law Group evaluate my EB-1A eligibility?

Yes. We offer case evaluations to determine whether EB-1A is the right path and how to approach it strategically.

The Nebraska federal court decision is a reminder that immigration law is governed by rules, not guesswork.

When USCIS oversteps, courts can and do intervene.

For qualified individuals pursuing EB-1A permanent residence, proper legal strategy can make the difference between delay and approval.