USCIS Can’t Move the Goalposts: A New Win for EB-1A Applicants

18 February 2026

If you are applying for an EB-1A “Extraordinary Ability” visa, you probably know the drill: you gather mountains of evidence to meet at least three of the ten official criteria. But lately, many applicants have found that even after checking those boxes, USCIS denies them anyway based on a vague “second look” called a Final Merits Determination.

A federal court in Nebraska just stepped in to say: enough. In the case of Mukherji v. Miller (January 2026), the Court overturned a visa denial for a talented journalist and ordered USCIS to approve her petition. Here is why this matters for your immigration journey.+1

The Case at a Glance

Anahita Mukherji is a high-achieving journalist from India. When she applied for her EB-1A visa, USCIS actually agreed that she met five of the legal criteria—nearly double what is required . Specifically, she showed:+2

• Awards: Documentation of prizes for excellence in her field.
• Media Coverage: Published material about her work in major media.
• Judging: Experience judging the work of others.
• Original Impact: Evidence of major contributions to her field.
• Leading Roles: A history of critical roles for distinguished organizations .

Despite this, USCIS denied her visa. They claimed that while she used to be at the top of her field, she hadn’t won enough major awards lately to prove her acclaim was “sustained” .+1

Why the Judge Stepped In

The Judge didn’t just disagree with USCIS; he ruled that their entire “two-step” process was legally flawed.

• An Illegal Rule Change: For 20 years, the rules were simple: if you met the criteria, you qualified. In 2010, USCIS added a “second step” without following proper legal procedures. The Court called this an “unexplained inconsistency”.+4
• No “Indefinite” Requirement: The law doesn’t say you have to win a Pulitzer Prize every single year to be considered extraordinary . Once you’ve reached the top of your field, you don’t lose that status just because you aren’t collecting a new trophy every month.+1
• Arbitrary Denials: The Court found that the USCIS officer failed to provide any clear, objective standard for the denial, making the decision “arbitrary and capricious”.+1

This ruling is a breath of fresh air. It reminds USCIS that they have to follow the law as written by Congress, not make up new hurdles as they go. If you have the evidence to meet the criteria, you deserve a fair shot at your visa.

In a rare move, the Judge didn’t just tell USCIS to “try again”—he ordered them to approve the petition immediately because there was simply no legal reason left to deny it.