He Built a Nation’s Television Industry But Lost His U.S. Green Card Battle: The Stunning EB-1A Case of Anil Rijal

For decades, Anil Rijal stood behind the camera, shaping stories that reached millions. He helped pioneer modern television in Nepal. His documentaries won awards, and his name carried weight in his industry. On paper, it looked like the journey of a man who had already proven himself extraordinary.

But when Anil Rijal applied for a U.S. green card under the prestigious EB-1A “extraordinary ability” category, the answer from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services was a firm denial.

What followed was a historic federal court battle in 2011. At GCEB1, our EB-1A consultants love exploring the genealogy of past ‘EB-1A cases’ to learn something in depth about this category. The attempt to discuss Anil Rajal’s case falls under a similar passion, and the expectation that it can teach us something illustrative about the EB-1A criteria itself.

What does “extraordinary” really mean in American immigration law?

The EB-1A category is often described as the “top 1% visa.” It is designed for individuals who can prove sustained national or international acclaim. In other words, people who have truly risen to the very top of their field. No employer sponsorship is required in this category. Nor any labor certification. This category requires nothing less than pure demonstrable merit and acclaim among the peers. But that merit must be documented with almost surgical precision.

Rijal believed his decades of work in film and television, including award-winning documentaries and leadership in media ventures, met that standard. USCIS disagreed. The courts ultimately sided with the government.

Here is what actually unfolded in the case.

Background of the case

In essence, the Anil Rijal v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services case was a legal fight over whether a skilled professional should have been granted status as an EB-1A “extraordinary ability” immigrant. In 2005, Anil Rijal, a citizen of Nepal, was in the U.S. on a visitor visa. While still in the country, he filed an I-140 immigrant petition with USCIS seeking classification as an “alien of extraordinary ability” based on his work in film and television production.

USCIS denied Rijal’s petition multiple times; he appealed internally without success, and eventually he sued in federal court. The case eventually went before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and later the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Who was Anil Rijal?

Anil Rijal was a long-time television and film professional from Nepal. During his decades-long career, he filled all three shoes of a cameraman, director, and producer, and helped build parts of the television industry in his home country.

He contributed to programs and documentaries that reached large audiences and was involved in enterprises like Young Asia TV. Two of his documentaries, Kumari: The Living Goddess and Four Years in Hell, have won awards in international festivals.

On paper, Rijal’s life story included many achievements you would expect from someone strong in his field. But the legal question was not simply whether he was successful, but whether his achievements met the legal definition of “extraordinary ability” under U.S. immigration law.

The analysis of the case & its implications for EB-1A extraordinary ability

The court’s analysis focused on how USCIS applies the EB-1A rules. Under those rules, found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h), an applicant must:

1.Provide evidence of a major, internationally recognized award (a “one-time achievement”), or

2.Submit at least three types of qualifying evidence from a list of ten categories, including things like:

• lesser internationally recognized prizes or awards,
• published material about the person,
• judging the work of others,
• leadership in distinguished organizations, etc.

But meeting three criteria is rarely the end of the story. Even after providing enough evidence, the applicant still must show that their accomplishments prove sustained national or international acclaim and that they truly are at the very top of their field. This is sometimes assessed through what USCIS calls a “final merits determination.”

In Rijal’s case, USCIS concluded that:

• His two film awards did not qualify as a major, internationally recognized award under the strict legal definition.
• He did not sufficiently meet three of the alternative evidentiary criteria with evidence that convincingly showed acclaim or distinction.
• Therefore, he did not prove “sustained national or international acclaim.

The U.S. District Court agreed with USCIS. It noted that while Rijal had a long and successful career, USCIS reasonably concluded that his achievements did not show he was among the tiny minority at the top of his profession globally. In legal terms, the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its determination.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in 2012, essentially agreeing with the district court’s reasoning.

What were the grounds for USCIS’s denial?

USCIS’s denial of Rijal’s EB-1A petition rested on two major points:

His awards do not qualify as major international recognition

Rijal submitted evidence of the two awards his documentaries won. However, USCIS judged that these did not rise to the level of a major, internationally recognized award like a Nobel Prize or Oscar. Importantly, an award doesn’t have to be famous like an Oscar, but there must be clear evidence of international recognition and prestige. The accolades Rijal’s documentation won weren’t enough to prove that. To quote USCIS archives:

‘Likewise, the fact that a competition is "nationwide" and is open to "hundreds of competitors from around the world" is also not evidence of its national or international recognition. And although the Petitioner points to support letters "confirming [his] participation and first place in the…..merely winning the award is not sufficient without a showing of the award's national or international recognition.’

He did not satisfactorily meet three alternative criteria

Rijal also tried to make his case using the alternative criteria (like lesser awards and judging others’ work), but USCIS found his evidence too weak or insufficient to satisfy those evidentiary buckets. For example:

• One award was not enough to show sustained acclaim.
• Letters or press clippings were not persuasive about his renown.
• His evidence of judging or leadership roles did not involve truly elite positions.

Taken together, USCIS believed the evidence didn’t show he met the high standard of being “one of the small percentage” at the top of his field. Since one of the three criteria presented by Rijal’s petitioner included awards that have already been disqualified by the USCIS, in total, he failed to satisfy the ‘three criteria’ requirements.

What does this case teach us about the EB-1A award criteria?

The Rijal case is extremely illustrative of the nature of award criteria in the USCIS lingo. It demonstrates that career success and EB-1A criteria are not synonymous. Moreover, an awardcan be prestigious and still not enough to tick the EB-1A requirements. Here are some important takeaways from the case that we have compiled from all the readers and aspirants:

Awards must be meaningfully recognized

Winning an international award alone is not enough. To qualify as a major achievement, the award must be recognized widely within the field and documented strongly.

Multiple pieces of evidence still require depth

Even if you meet three criteria, USCIS can still deny if the evidence doesn’t collectively show you are in the “very top” of your field. Quality of evidence matters as much as quantity.

Sustained acclaim is a core requirement

You won’t get an EB-1A by showing past achievements. You also need to demonstrate ongoing recognition and impact.

Final takeaway

The Anil Rijal case is a classic example of how strict the EB-1A standard truly is. A long, successful career and awards are not enough by themselves. The applicants must build a strong, well-documented case showing they are truly at the top of their field. Most importantly, the documentation must meet the legal lingo of the USCIS. An extraordinary career is half of the story; the other half comes from strategy and meticulousness.

At GCEB1, our EB-1A experts systematically indulge in a deep dive into past and present EB-1A legal archives to understand the criteria better. And, we take our bearings from these past insights to mentor our clients better. For more personalized queries and confusion, you can directly get in touch with us. We wish you a safe and stress-free immigration journey.

Sources & Further Readings

1. “Rijal v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)."
2. “Rijal v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012)."
3. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Decision Issued in 2024, B2 – Aliens with Extraordinary Ability, DEC202024_02B2203.pdf."Washington, DC: USCIS, 2024.