USCIS Drops Appeal in EB-1A Case: What the Mukherji Ruling Means for Green Card Applicants

The world of U.S. employment-based immigration rarely sees a single court decision shake up an entire visa category, but that is exactly what has happened with Mukherji v. Miller, a case that immigration attorneys across the country are now calling one of the most significant EB-1A developments in over a decade. And recently, in a move with far-reaching implications, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has formally withdrawn its appeal against a Nebraska federal court ruling that invalidated the agency's controversial "final merits determination" process in EB-1A adjudications.

For thousands of Eb1a applicants, this is news worth understanding in detail. Below, we break down exactly what happened and what it means for anyone working with EB1 experts or seeking EB1A mentorship to build a winning petition.

The case that started it all: Mukherji v. Miller

At the center of this legal battle is Anahita Mukherji, an accomplished Indian journalist who filed an EB-1A petition in March 2024. USCIS found that she met five of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), nearly double the minimum threshold needed for approval. Yet despite this, her petition was denied.

The denial did not happen at the initial eligibility stage. Instead, USCIS rejected her case during what is known as the "final merits determination," a second-step review where an officer makes a subjective judgment about whether the applicant has truly risen to the very top of their field. According to court filings, USCIS concluded that she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim after 2015, even though her qualifying achievements were well-documented and undisputed.

Instead of accepting the denial, Mukherji took the unusual but increasingly common step of suing USCIS in federal court, filing her case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. She argued that the agency's decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We have previously covered this case in detail. Here, however, we are going to take a look at what the recent update on this case actually means.

Understanding the "Final Merits Determination" problem

To understand why this case became such a flashpoint, it helps to examine the framework USCIS has used since 2010, often referred to as the Kazarian two-step approach.

Step one asks a simple, objective question: does the applicant meet at least three of the ten listed regulatory criteria? Step two, the final merits determination, then asks a far more subjective question: does the totality of the evidence show that the person has truly reached the top of their field with sustained acclaim? Critics of this system, including many EB1 experts who have helped clients through the process, have long argued that this second step gives immigration officers virtually unchecked discretion to deny petitions even when an applicant has clearly satisfied the established criteria.

In Mukherji's case, USCIS used this second step to introduce requirements that do not appear anywhere in the statute or regulations, including an implied demand that an applicant demonstrate continuous, "indefinite top status" with fresh recognition every single year, rather than a body of work and acclaim built over a career.

The Nebraska court's ruling: looking back to the historic decision

On January 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon ruled decisively in Mukherji's favor. Rather than simply sending the case back to USCIS for reconsideration, as federal courts often do, the judge took the rarer step of ordering USCIS to approve the petition outright.

The court's reasoning rested on multiple independent grounds, any one of which would have been sufficient to strike down the agency's approach. The district court held that USCIS improperly denied the petition by relying on a second evaluative step that was not properly adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. In plain terms, the court found that USCIS had quietly created a significant new hurdle for applicants through internal policy memos rather than through the formal public rulemaking process required by federal law for substantive rule changes.

The court also found the agency's reasoning arbitrary and capricious, noting that USCIS had shifted away from a single-step adjudicative standard used for nearly two decades without ever acknowledging or justifying that policy change. Equally important, the judge rejected the idea that an applicant must show year-over-year, uninterrupted recognition to prove "sustained" acclaim, noting that the statute itself requires only that acclaim "has been demonstrated," using past-tense language that does not impose any ongoing recency requirement.

DOJ's initial appeal and why it mattered

Following the January ruling, the Department of Justice, representing USCIS, filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This was a significant moment in its own right because, while the district court decision was a clear win for Mukherji and a useful reference point for other applicants, a single district court ruling is only "persuasive" authority outside its own jurisdiction. It does not bind USCIS nationwide, and an appeal threatened to either solidify the agency's two-step framework if the lower court was overturned or elevate the ruling to a binding circuit-wide precedent if it was upheld.

This left immigration attorneys and applicants in suspense for several months as the ultimate fate of the "final merits determination" challenge hinged on what the Eighth Circuit would decide.

USCIS withdraws its appeal: what changed

That uncertainty was resolved when USCIS chose not to pursue the matter further. Instead of continuing to litigate before the Eighth Circuit, the agency withdrew its appeal entirely. In other words, the Nebraska district court's order to approve Mukherji's petition now won a clean victory.

Immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta, commenting on the development, noted that by withdrawing the appeal, USCIS avoided the risk of an adverse appellate ruling while leaving the district court judgment intact. This is widely viewed as a calculated decision by the agency. In other words, instead of risking a circuit court decision that could formally invalidate its final merits framework on a much broader scale, USCIS chose to let the loss stand quietly in one case while preserving its ability to use the same framework elsewhere, at least for now.

What this decision does and does not mean

It is important to be precise about the legal weight of this outcome, because there has been some confusion and overstatement in public discussion.

First, what it does mean: the ruling is now final and unappealable in Mukherji's specific case. The withdrawal does not create a binding precedent beyond the district court case itself, but it does mean the reasoning in the decision is now available as persuasive authority that attorneys can cite in other cases. This would apply to RFE (Request for Evidence) responses, and federal lawsuits challenging similar denials. Experts say it may provide persuasive authority in future challenges to similar denials, even though it applies directly only to the applicant involved in this case.

Second, what it does not mean: this ruling does not eliminate the final merits determination process nationwide, and it does not automatically change USCIS adjudication standards or policy. The decision does not eliminate USCIS's final merits review process, nor does it automatically change eligibility standards for EB-1A applicants as a matter of formal policy. USCIS remains free to continue applying the same two-step framework to other petitions unless and until a higher court, or formal rulemaking, forces a broader change.

This distinction matters enormously for anyone currently filing or planning to file an EB-1A petition, because it means the legal fight over the final merits determination is far from over, even though this particular battle has been won decisively.

Why professional guidance matters more than ever

The Mukherji case is a useful reminder that EB-1A adjudications are not purely mechanical box-checking exercises. Meeting three, four, or even five of the ten regulatory criteria, as Mukherji did, is no guarantee of approval if the petition narrative and supporting evidence are not carefully constructed to anticipate and preempt a subjective final merits review.

This is precisely why so many successful applicants choose to work with experienced EB1 consultants who understand how USCIS officers actually evaluate petitions in practice, not just on paper. Skilled eb1 experts know how to frame a career narrative that demonstrates sustained acclaim in a way that withstands scrutiny at both the initial criteria stage and the final merits stage.

The right eb1 mentorship helps applicants identify gaps in their evidence portfolio well before filing, and avoid the kind of vague, conclusory denial language that led to years of litigation in the Mukherji case. Given how much subjective discretion still remains in the system even after this ruling, thorough preparation with knowledgeable guidance remains the single best safeguard against an unpredictable outcome.

In place of conclusion

The Mukherji litigation has not closed the book on USCIS's final merits determination process, but it has opened a meaningful crack in what was once considered an unquestionable agency practice. With persuasive precedent now on record, more applicants may be encouraged to challenge questionable denials in federal court, and USCIS may eventually face pressure to clarify or reform how it applies this second-stage review.

Until then, the practical lesson for EB-1A hopefuls is clear: meeting the minimum criteria is necessary but not always sufficient. A well-documented, strategically presented petition, ideally built with the help of seasoned EB1 consultants and grounded in proper eb1a mentorship, remains the most reliable way to navigate a system where the final word still rests, for now, with USCIS's own discretion.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the EB-1A visa category?

The EB-1A is an employment-based, first-preference immigrant visa category for individuals with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. It allows applicants to self-petition for a U.S. green card without needing employer sponsorship or a labor certification.

2. What was the Mukherji v. Miller case about?

The case involved Anahita Mukherji, an Indian journalist whose EB-1A petition was denied even though USCIS agreed she met five of the ten required regulatory criteria. A Nebraska federal court ruled that USCIS's denial, based on its "final merits determination" process, was unlawful and ordered the agency to approve her petition.

3. What is the "final merits determination" in EB-1A cases?

It is a second-step review USCIS applies after an applicant has already met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. In this step, an officer subjectively evaluates whether the applicant's overall record shows they have truly reached the top of their field with sustained acclaim.

4. Why did USCIS withdraw its appeal?

By withdrawing the appeal, USCIS avoided the risk of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issuing a ruling that could have created binding, nationwide precedent against its final merits determination practice, while still leaving the district court's decision intact for this individual case.

5. Does this ruling apply to all EB-1A applicants nationwide?

No. The ruling is legally binding only for the specific case it decided. However, it carries persuasive value, meaning attorneys and courts elsewhere may reference its reasoning, but it does not change USCIS policy or guarantee approval for other applicants.

6. Does this mean USCIS will stop using the final merits determination?

Not necessarily. USCIS can continue applying the same two-step framework to other petitions unless a higher court, formal rulemaking, or broader litigation forces a nationwide change.

7. How can this ruling help someone whose EB-1A petition was denied?

Applicants who received a denial based on vague final merits language, such as claims about "recency" of achievements or failure to show year-over-year acclaim, may now have a stronger legal basis to challenge that denial through a motion, an administrative appeal, or a federal lawsuit, citing the reasoning in this case.

8. Should I work with EB1 consultants when applying for this visa?

Given the subjective nature of the final merits review, many applicants benefit from working with experienced EB1 consultants who understand how to build a petition that satisfies both the initial criteria and the more discretionary merits evaluation.

9. What role does eb1a mentorship play in building a strong petition?

Eb1a mentorship can help applicants assess their eligibility early, identify weaknesses in their evidence before filing, and structure their petition narrative in a way that anticipates and addresses the kind of subjective scrutiny highlighted in the Mukherji case.

10. Is it still worth applying for EB-1A given how subjective the final merits stage can be?

Yes, for genuinely qualified applicants. The EB-1A remains one of the few green card paths that does not require employer sponsorship. While the final merits stage adds uncertainty, a well-prepared petition built with guidance from experienced eb1 experts significantly improves the odds of a successful outcome.

Sources & further readings

• Kably, Lubna. “USCIS Drops Appeal in EB-1A Case, Lower Court Ruling Will Have Persuasive Value for Green Card Applicants.”.The Times of India, June 11, 2026.
• Murthy Law Firm. “District Court Rules USCIS Use of ‘Final Merits Determination’ in EB-1A Petitions.” Murthy Law Firm, January 29, 2026. Murthy Law Firm Analysis.
• Mehta, Cyrus, and Kaitlyn Box. “USCIS Withdraws Appeal in Mukherji: What Changes—And What Does Not?” Lexology, June 11, 2026.
• Reddy Neumann Brown PC. “Federal Court Orders USCIS to Approve EB-1A Petition: What Extraordinary Ability Applicants Should Know.” February 3, 2026.
• Fakhoury Global Immigration. “Federal Court Invalidates the ‘Kazarian Rule’ and Reaffirms Statutory Limits on EB-1A Adjudications.” January 30, 2026.