Federal Court Rebukes USCIS EB-1A Denials, Calling Long-Used “Final Merits” Test Unlawful

A recent federal court decision has sent shockwaves through the immigration law community and reignited hope for professionals pursuing the EB-1A extraordinary ability green card. In Mukherji v. Miller, a U.S. District Court held that USCIS unlawfully denied an EB-1A petition and ordered the agency to approve it, finding that USCIS’s long-used “final merits determination” framework was adopted without proper legal authority and applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner .For potential EB-1A applicants, this ruling is significant, but it is also easy to misunderstand. The decision does not mean that EB-1A petitions are now automatically approved, nor does it eliminate the high statutory standard for extraordinary ability. What it does do is expose serious legal weaknesses in how USCIS has been denying otherwise well-documented petitions for more than a decade.

At the center of the case was a journalist who had clearly met at least five of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), far exceeding the minimum requirement of three. USCIS nevertheless denied the petition, relying on a second-step “final merits determination” to conclude that the petitioner had not sustained national or international acclaim in recent years. The court rejected that approach, holding that USCIS created this two-step adjudication framework without notice-and-comment rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, and without statutory authorization from Congress .

This matters because EB-1A eligibility is governed by statute and regulation, not by internal agency preferences. Congress required proof of extraordinary ability demonstrated by sustained acclaim and extensive documentation, but it did not authorize USCIS to invent an extra, undefined layer of review that allows officers to subjectively discount evidence that already satisfies the regulation. The court was especially critical of USCIS’s failure to articulate clear standards for what qualifies as “enough” acclaim, noting that nothing in the statute requires an applicant to remain perpetually at the absolute peak of their field to qualify .

From a practical standpoint, this decision strengthens the legal position of EB-1A applicants who have strong records but have been denied based on vague assertions that they are no longer at the “very top” of their field. It also gives immigration attorneys powerful ammunition to challenge denials in federal court, particularly where USCIS acknowledges that the regulatory criteria were met but denies the case anyway based on subjective final-merits reasoning.

That said, it would be a mistake to assume that this ruling suddenly makes EB-1A easy. The statutory standard remains demanding. Applicants still need to show sustained national or international acclaim, extensive documentation, and a clear record of achievement. What has changed is that courts are increasingly unwilling to rubber-stamp agency practices that go beyond the law, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions limiting deference to agency interpretations of statutes and regulations .

For potential clients, the takeaway is nuanced but important. If you are a scientist, artist, entrepreneur, academic, or other professional with a strong record who has been told that EB-1A is “too risky” or that USCIS can deny you even if you meet the criteria, that advice may now be outdated. This case underscores the value of careful case strategy, rigorous documentation, and, when necessary, litigation-ready advocacy.

USCIS may respond to this decision with policy changes, appeals, or attempts to formalize its standards through rulemaking. Until then, Mukherji v. Miller stands as a clear reminder that EB-1A adjudications must follow the law as written, not as the agency wishes it to be applied. For qualified applicants who have been unfairly denied or discouraged from applying, this decision opens a meaningful path forward, but only if the case is built correctly from the start.

If you are considering an EB-1A petition or have received a denial that seems disconnected from the evidence you submitted, this ruling makes one thing clear: extraordinary ability cases are no longer just about credentials, they are also about enforcing the limits of agency power.

Legal Disclaimer:
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific, and outcomes depend on individual circumstances. Call (213) 251-5533 for a free legal consultation with Attorney Thomas Lee.