Nebraska Federal Court Challenges USCIS’s “Final Merits” Requirement in EB‑1A Case
A federal judge in Nebraska has ruled in favor of an EB-1A applicant who challenged their denial based on USCIS’s final merits determination.
In Mukherji v Miller, the plaintiff states that USCIS judged their EB-1A petition as “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. Their challenge argues that USCIS did not establish the final merits determination through the formal notice and rulemaking process. Instead, the agency established its policy through internal guidance, despite its substantive impact.
What led to this decision
On September 17, 2024, Indian journalist Anahita Mukherji sued USCIS over a denial of her EB-1A petition. According to the court filing, the federal agency ruled that her application met five out of the 10 EB-1A criteria. However, the denial, based on the final merits determination, ruled that she failed to show sustained national or international acclaim after 2015.
This decision led to her suing under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that her denial was unlawful. On January 28, 2026, Nebraska District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering that USCIS approve her EB-1A case.
This is a developing story. Manifest will continue to update this article as more information comes out.
FAQs on the EB-1A final merits legal challenge
Does this make EB-1A easier?
It doesn’t lower the standard, but it gives applicants a stronger tool to challenge denials that rely on vague or inconsistent reasoning. Strong cases benefit most.
Will USCIS stop using final merits now?
USCIS hasn’t changed its written approach yet, but this decision is useful when final merits is applied in a way that isn’t well-explained or isn’t grounded in the regulations.
What happens next?
USCIS can appeal this decision, and it may take weeks or months to play out. In the meantime, USCIS hasn’t announced any policy change, so EB-1A adjudications will likely continue as usual—but this ruling is a helpful tool we can cite in already-strong cases, especially when responding to RFEs or denials with thin ‘final merits’ reasoning.
