A major court ruling in Nebraska has overturned a USCIS denial in an EB-1A case, raising questions about long standing adjudication practices. The federal judge ruled against the use of a subjective review step applied by immigration officials.
How USCIS Reviews EB-1A Petitions
When reviewing EB-1A petitions, USCIS officers first check whether an applicant meets at least three out of ten listed criteria. After this, a subjective final merits determination is usually applied.
Court Questions the Kazarian Two Step Review
The denial was based on the Kazarian two step review that USCIS has used for years. However, Joseph Bataillon ruled that the second subjective step was technically unlawful.
Administrative Procedure Act Cited
The court found that USCIS introduced this step through internal memos rather than formal rulemaking. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, such changes require public notice and procedure.
Details of the Journalist’s Case
In this case, journalist Anahita Mukherji met five of the ten EB-1A criteria. Despite this, USCIS denied the petition, citing the absence of recent awards.
Legal Challenge and Court Verdict
Mukherji, along with her lawyer Brian Green, challenged the denial in court. The Nebraska court ruled in their favour, stating that professional fame does not need to be infinite.
Past Evidence Still Holds Value
The ruling clarified that older evidence can still demonstrate sustained national acclaim. Based on this reasoning, Judge Bataillon ordered USCIS to approve the EB-1A petition immediately.
Impact on Future EB-1A Cases
This decision offers a strong legal argument for applicants facing vague EB-1A denials. It opens the door to challenging “top of field” rejections through the courts.
Limits of the Ruling
The judgment is currently persuasive rather than binding across the United States. Applicants are still advised to present the strongest possible evidence when filing EB-1A petitions.
Possible Shift in USCIS Adjudication
Even so, the ruling may signal a broader shift in how EB-1A cases are evaluated by USCIS. Its long term impact on immigration adjudication remains to be seen.
