EB-1A: Update
Mukherji v. Miller: What a Recent Federal Court Decision Could Mean for EB-1A “Final Merits” Denials
If you’ve explored the EB-1A (extraordinary ability) category, you’ve likely heard about USCIS’s two-step adjudication approach: first, the officer checks whether you meet enough of the regulatory criteria (typically at least 3 of 10). Then comes the second step, often the most frustrating, called the “final merits determination,” where USCIS decides whether the totality of the evidence proves sustained national or international acclaim.
A recent federal court decision, Mukherji v. Miller (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026), has gotten significant attention because it directly challenges how USCIS has been using that second step to deny otherwise strong cases.
What happened in Mukherji?
According to multiple summaries, USCIS acknowledged the petitioner met five regulatory criteria, yet still denied the EB-1A petition at the “final merits” stage—asserting the evidence did not show the required level of sustained acclaim.
The court vacated the denial and, notably, remanded with instructions to approve, a remedy that is relatively rare in APA litigation.
The big takeaway: “Final merits” can’t be a moving target
Commentary on the decision describes the court as rejecting USCIS’s use of a vague, extra layer of adjudication, particularly where USCIS has already conceded the objective criteria are met, and criticizing the lack of clear standards and legal footing for how “final merits” is applied.
What this means for prospective EB-1A clients
This decision does not mean EB-1A has become “easy,” and it does not automatically change USCIS policy nationwide. It’s a federal district court ruling and could be appealed or distinguished in other jurisdictions.
But it does give applicants and attorneys a stronger framework to push back when:
USCIS agrees the criteria are met but denies anyway using broad statements like “not enough sustained acclaim,” without explaining what specifically is missing; and/or
A denial appears to apply an unwritten standard that goes beyond the regulation.
Practical impact
For clients, the real-world value is strategic: stronger RFE/NOID responses, better positioned administrative appeals, and—where appropriate—clearer litigation arguments under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging arbitrary decision-making.
If you’ve received an EB-1A RFE or denial centered on “final merits,” Mukherji is the kind of case your attorney should be evaluating as part of your options assessment.
