A recent federal court decision has drawn attention to how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) analyzes EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions. In Mukherji v. USCIS (January 2026), a U.S. District Court ruled that USCIS improperly applied its long-standing two-step adjudication framework—specifically the “final merits determination”—without following the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Traditionally, USCIS evaluates EB-1A petitions by first determining whether the applicant meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria (or a one-time major achievement), and then conducting a final merits determination to assess whether the evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. The court found that this second step effectively adds requirements not clearly stated in the statute or regulations and was implemented through policy guidance rather than formal rulemaking. As a result, the court vacated the denial in that case and ordered approval of the petition.

This decision does not automatically change USCIS policy nationwide, and USCIS has not yet announced any formal updates to its EB-1A adjudication process. However, the ruling may influence future challenges to EB-1A denials, particularly those based heavily on subjective assessments rather than whether the regulatory criteria were met with objective evidence.

For individuals considering an EB-1A petition, or those who have received an RFE or denial, this case highlights the importance of strong documentation and careful legal analysis. It also underscores the value of experienced legal counsel when challenging decisions that may rely on informal or unsupported standards. To discuss your eligibility or options, contact Agarwal Law Group at 703-348-1663 to schedule a consultation.

‍