Does the New Federal District Court Ruling Turns Over a New Page for EB-1A Applications?

Within the framework of U.S. immigration law, the EB‑1A (Alien of Extraordinary Ability) category offers an expedited pathway to permanent residency for foreign nationals with exceptional achievements in fields such as science, the arts, education, business, or athletics. Unlike most employment‑based categories, the EB‑1A does not require employer sponsorship or the lengthy Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) process, making it a highly coveted option for global talent seeking U.S. permanent residency. At the same time, the category is defined by rigorous evidentiary standards and the stringent scrutiny applied by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

In practice, USCIS has implemented a two‑step review framework, with the second step commonly referred to as the “Final Merits Determination.” Since its adoption, both the two‑step analysis and the Final Merits Determination have generated ongoing controversy among practitioners and legal scholars.

These debates reached a crescendo in 2026 following a recent ruling by a federal district court that may have lasting consequences for future EB‑1A adjudications. In Mukherji v. Miller, the court issued a fundamental challenge to the Final Merits Determination, holding that it conflicts with the governing statutory framework. This decision may signal a significant shift in how EB‑1A petitions will be evaluated going forward.

This article adopts the perspective of a practitioner to examine the Mukherji v. Miller ruling and explore its potential practical implications for future EB‑1A adjudications.

Image: Report on Mukherji v. Miller. Source: District Court Rules that USCIS’s EB-1A “Final Merits” Framework is Unlawful | Robinson Immigration Law - JDSupra

The Evolution of the "Two-Step" Review: An Increasingly Unruly Standard

To understand the significance of Mukherji v. Miller, it is necessary to clarify what the controversial two‑step review process—and specifically the Final Merits Determination—entails. Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), EB‑1A applicants must either demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized award (such as a Nobel Prize or Grammy Award) or satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria as evidence of extraordinary ability.

The first step of the two‑step review process requires USCIS to compile all evidence submitted by the applicant and make an objective, threshold determination: does the record show that the applicant has satisfied at least three of the ten criteria? If the answer is yes, the applicant clears the first step and proceeds to the second stage of analysis.

Image: 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as displayed on the eCFR website Source: Federal Register :: Request Access

The second step is the so‑called Final Merits Determination, and its origin can be traced to the Ninth Circuit’s 2010 decision in Kazarian v. USCIS. Following Kazarian, USCIS gradually formalized and implemented this second step across all EB‑1A adjudications, and the term “Final Merits Determination” became widely adopted. Under this second step, even if an applicant has already satisfied the objective evidentiary requirements in the first stage, USCIS nevertheless conducts a holistic assessment of the entire record and applies a subjective standard to determine whether the applicant has truly reached the very top of the field and enjoys sustained national or international acclaim.

In practice, this subjective assessment has afforded immigration officers considerable discretionary authority over EB‑1A adjudications. The vague and poorly articulated standard has resulted in numerous denials over the years, even for applicants who clearly meet the statutory criteria. This is simply because adjudicators had concluded, based on their own subjective impressions, that the applicant had not demonstrated that they are among the small percentage at the pinnacle of their field. This decision‑making process, saturated with subjective judgments, has frequently left both qualified applicants and their attorneys perplexed by denial decisions. As a result, the second step of the EB‑1A review process, as derived from Kazarian v. USCIS, has gradually transformed what was intended to be an objective, evidence‑based adjudication into one heavily influenced by the personal views of individual immigration officers.

 

Mukherji v. Miller: The First Step Towards Judicial Correction

In January 2026, the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Nebraska issued a ruling that may have just kicked off the first step of judicial correction. The Mukherji v. Miller case saw a journalist petitioner of EB-1A challenging her denial decision. In Mukherji v. Miller, the petitioner submitted evidence of her extraordinary abilities under multiple achievement categories, and the evidence was acknowledged by the immigration officer as satisfying five statutory criteria, far exceeding the minimum requirement of three. Nevertheless, the immigration authorities still rejected the application based on the Final Merit Determination, reasoning that the petitioner had failed to maintain sustained acclaim in recent years. 

In its decision, the Court explicitly identified fundamental defects in the two-step review process:

1. Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The Court held that the Final Merit Determination was established without following the required procedures under the APA, as adopting the Final Merit Determination process did have a substantive impact. Since USCIS adopted the Final Merit Determination in 2010 through an interim policy memorandum with only a 14-day comment period, it circumvented the rigorous notice-and-comment procedures mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 553. USCIS cannot create new and binding legal standards through internal policy memoranda or expansive interpretations of past precedents, as it essentially bypasses the formal legislative process, and hence unlawful.

2. Lack of Congressional Authorization: The Court further emphasized that Congress clearly defined the eligibility criteria for EB-1A Visa in the Immigration and Nationality Act, and has never authorized USCIS to impose an additional, vaguely defined layer of scrutiny beyond the established statutory framework. The Court stated that USCIS's duties were to enforce the laws enacted by Congress, and not to engage in legislative actions on its own. By creating and enforcing these unwritten, subjective standards such as determining what constitutes sufficient recent reputation and acclaim, USCIS exceeded its delegated authority and actions taken in excess of said authority are void.

3. Arbitrary and Capricious Standards: The Court went on to criticize USCIS for failing to provide clear and enforceable standards for the so-called Final Merit Determination. The Court raised several questions regarding the standard. What constitutes sufficient acclaim? For how long must a petitioner maintain sustained acclaim at the top of his or her field? No such requirements exist in the applicable law or regulations. As such, USCIS's rejection of an application that already satisfies all objective statutory criteria by setting the application against clearly subjective impressions constitutes a classic example of arbitrary and capricious administrative action.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner and held that the two-step review process, particularly the Final Merit Determination, was invalid at its inception because it was adopted in violation of the APA's procedural requirements. Further, the Court found that the standard employed by USCIS to carry out the two-step review process is indeed arbitrary and capricious. As such, the Court overturned the USCIS's denial and took the rare step of directly ordering USCIS to approve the petitioner's EB-1A application.

The Potential Impact and Future Outlook of the Mukherji Decision

The Mukherji decision carries significant implications for all participants of the EB-1A immigration process. Although this is only a district court ruling, its potential impact should not be underestimated. For EB-1A applicants, the decision provides encouragement to those with solid evidence to satisfy the objective adjudication standard but feared a subjective denial. This case is a direct response to that fear, meaning that as long as a case is properly constructed from the outset with compelling objective evidence, USCIS will find it much more difficult to deny an application based solely on subjective judgements. For practitioners, the decision provides additional legal assurance for challenging improper USCIS denials, with the added abilities to directly invoke the Mukherji decision to counter future instances where USCIS has exceeded its lawful authority in a similar manner. 

Conclusion: Restoring the Rule of Law

The value of Mukerji v. Miller lies in its direct affirmation of a fundamental principle of the rule of law: the authority of administrative agencies derives from statutory delegation, and administrative agencies must operate within the legal framework established by statutes. USCIS cannot establish an additional set of vague and elusive rules beyond the scope of Congressional legislations to pick and choose petitioners. This decision thus represents an important step toward ensuring fairness, transparency, and predictability in EB-1A adjudications. The decision redirects the focus of review back to the fundamentals, which is the evaluation of objective evidence. For accomplished petitioners, this decision signifies that their pursuit of the American dream will henceforth depend more on concrete achievements and less on USCIS's elusive preference or value judgements. Looking forward, the passage of EB-1A applications could become clearer and more equitable, representing a meaningful step toward fairness and predictability.