What Changed for EB-1A  

After the 2026 Federal Court Ruling

On January 28, 2026, a US District Court in Nebraska issued a landmark decision in Mukherji v. Miller, directly challenging USCIS’s two-step Kazarian framework for adjudicating [EB-1A] petitions. The co…

01-

What Changed for EB-1A After the 2026 Federal Court Ruling

On January 28, 2026, a US District Court in Nebraska issued a landmark decision in Mukherji v. Miller, directly challenging USCIS’s two-step Kazarian framework for adjudicating EB-1A petitions. The court ruled that USCIS’s final merits determination, which is the second step of the framework that has been used since 2010 to deny otherwise qualified petitions, was unlawfully adopted without the notice-and-comment rulemaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The court vacated the denial and ordered USCIS to approve the petition. This ruling isn’t binding nationwide and doesn’t immediately change USCIS policy, though it gives petitioners a clear legal basis for challenging final merits denials in federal court going forward.

According to Jinee Green Card, EB-1A profile building, “The Mukherji ruling matters because it questions a step USCIS has used for over a decade to deny petitions where applicants clearly met the regulatory criteria. For petitioners with strong criteria-level evidence facing a final merits denial, this changes the calculus.”

Got an EB-1A denial after meeting the criteria? Book

02-

What Did the 2026 Mukherji v. Miller Ruling Actually Decide?

The Nebraska federal court issued a focused ruling on a specific procedural failure in how USCIS adopted its EB-1A adjudication framework, and the implications run deeper than most petitioners initially realize.

– Final Merits Determination Held Unlawful: USCIS adopted the two-step Kazarian framework through internal policy memoranda back in 2010, including the contested final merits determination, and the court found this was procedurally invalid because the agency skipped the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act

– Petitioner Met Five of Ten Criteria: USCIS conceded the petitioner satisfied five of the ten regulatory criteria, which is well above the required three. The agency still denied the case at the final merits stage, claiming the record didn’t establish sustained national or international acclaim, and the court flatly rejected that reasoning before ordering approval

– Approval Rates Dropped Before the Ruling: EB-1A approval rates had already fallen from historical norms of 60 to 70% down to as low as 30% in mid-2025 as final merits denials accelerated, and the Mukherji decision arrived after a year of growing concern over denials issued to petitioners who clearly met multiple criteria

– Ruling Isn’t Binding Nationwide: Since this is a District of Nebraska decision, it doesn’t control USCIS or other federal courts outside that jurisdiction. USCIS hasn’t revised its policies, Kazarian itself hasn’t been overturned, and the framework remains in effect for new petitions pending further legal action or formal rulemaking

Petitioners trying to understand how this ruling fits into the broader 2026 policy landscape, including new background check requirements and the Final Action Dates rule, should review the 2026 USCIS updates guide for EB-1A applicants for the full picture.

03-

How Does the Mukherji Ruling Affect Current and Future EB-1A Petitioners?

The practical impact varies based on where the petitioner sits in the process and what the case actually looks like on paper.

– A Real Tool for Challenging Final Merits Denials: Petitioners who satisfied 3 or more EB-1A criteria but were denied at the final merits stage now have a concrete legal basis for challenging that denial in federal court, and the ruling is already being cited as persuasive authority in new RFE responses, NOID responses, and active litigation

– No Immediate Policy Change at USCIS: USCIS continues to apply the Kazarian two-step framework in adjudications nationwide, so new EB-1A petitions filed after January 28, 2026 are still being evaluated under the same standard. The agency hasn’t announced any rulemaking process to formally codify or replace the framework either, meaning the legal terrain has shifted but the day-to-day adjudication hasn’t caught up yet

– Stronger Position for Multi-Criteria Petitions: Petitioners whose evidence clearly satisfies 4, 5, or more criteria are in a stronger position to push back against subjective final merits reasoning. Documented satisfaction of multiple criteria combined with the Mukherji authority makes RFE responses and federal court challenges more viable than they were a year ago

– Possible Government Appeal: The government may appeal the Mukherji decision to the Eighth Circuit. If that appeal succeeds and the ruling gets reversed, the practical impact diminishes considerably, but if the appeal affirms the lower court ruling, the precedent gets stronger. Petitioners and immigration attorneys are watching the appeal status closely since it shapes how aggressively the ruling can be used in pending cases

Professionals weighing whether to file EB-2 NIW profile building instead of EB-1A under the current uncertainty should know NIW operates under a different framework and wasn’t directly affected by Mukherji. Those building toward EB-1A but not yet ready can use the O-1A visa pathway to maintain authorized status while the Mukherji impact develops.

04-

Why Choose Jinee Green Card

Jinee Green Card has helped 500+ professionals get approved with a 93% approval rate. The team includes experienced immigration attorneys, an ex-USCIS officer who knows exactly how the Mukherji ruling and broader 2026 framework affect adjudication from the inside, and domain experts with over 15 years adapting EB-1A, EB-2 NIW, and O-1A strategies to evolving USCIS policy and federal court precedent.

05-

Frequently Asked Questions

06-

References