Nebraska Federal Court Orders USCIS to Approve EB-1A After Unlawful “Final Merits” Denial

On January 28^th a federal judge in Nebraska ruled that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must approve an EB-1A petition that was previously denied, based on the court’s finding that the “final merits requirement,” was unlawfully adopted by USCIS.

What Happened in the EB-1A Case?

On January 28, 2026, a U.S. District Court judge in Nebraska issued a decision in Mukherji v. Miller in favor of an EB-1A applicant who challenged the denial of her I-140 petition. The case focused on USCIS’s practice of applying a “final merits determination,” an additional layer of review that goes beyond evaluating whether an applicant meets the regulatory criteria for the EB-1A classification.

The plaintiff, Indian journalist Anahita Mukherji, filed her EB-1A petition with evidence showing that she satisfied five of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Despite this, USCIS denied her petition, not because she failed to meet the required criteria, but because the agency concluded she had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim after 2015. This conclusion was reached through USCIS’s “final merits” analysis.

The Court’s Ruling

The court ruled that USCIS’s reliance on the final merits framework was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because the policy was not formally adopted through the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process. The judge found that USCIS could not apply a substantive adjudicatory standard that materially affects petition outcomes without following proper legal procedures.

As a result, the court ordered USCIS to approve the applicant’s EB-1A petition outright, rather than send the case back to the agency for reconsideration. Such court orders mandating direct approval orders are rare in immigration litigation and underscore the court’s conclusion that the denial was legally improper.

What This Means for EB-1A Applicants

Although this decision does not lower the EB-1A eligibility standard, it provides important support for applicants who receive denials based on vague or inconsistent reasoning in the “final merits” analysis. The ruling may be particularly useful for challenging cases where USCIS acknowledges that the regulatory criteria are met, but nonetheless denies the petition based on subjective assessments not grounded in the law.

At the same time, USCIS has not yet revised its official adjudication guidance in response to the ruling. EB-1A adjudications are expected to continue under existing practices unless formal policy changes are announced, and the agency may still choose to appeal the decision.

Why It’s Important

While the ruling does not automatically change USCIS policy, it strengthens legal challenges to denials based on unclear final merits analysis. The broader impact will depend on whether USCIS appeals the decision or revises its adjudication standards.

The Law Offices of Jacob Sapochnick is carefully monitoring USCIS guidance and any related policy changes. We will provide further information as it becomes available.

Contact Us. If you would like to schedule a consultation, please text 619-483-4549 or call 619-819-9204.

Helpful Links

JOIN OUR NEW FACEBOOK GROUP

Need more immigration updates? We have created a new facebook group to address the impact of the new executive orders and other changing developments. Follow us there!