Nebraska Federal Court Challenges USCIS’s “Final Merits” Requirement in EB‑1A Case

UPDATE: On June 10, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) withdrew its appeal to Mukherji v. Miller. In the initial court decision, a district judge ruled that the agency’s final merits determination was improper, as being contrary to the statute and regulations and because it was a rule adopted without proper notice and comment. Therefore, USCIS was ordered to approve the plaintiff’s EB-1A petition, and now, with the government’s withdrawal of their appeal, that case is expected to be approved soon.

While the court decision applies only to plaintiff’s case, and though USCIS will continue to apply the final merits analysis to EB-1A cases, the decision offers a non-binding case that attorneys can cite to especially when responding to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). The government may now attempt to issue a rule with potentially more stringent requirements but nothing has been announced. We are monitoring the situation and will provide updates.

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.

Download the Court Decision Here

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 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.