Published: January 28, 2026
A major federal court ruling could significantly impact how EB-1A Extraordinary Ability cases are adjudicated moving forward.
On January 28, 2026, a federal judge in Nebraska granted summary judgment against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), ordering the agency to approve an EB-1A petition it had previously denied. The court found USCIS’s application of the “final merits determination”—under the two-step Kazarian framework—to be unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
This decision sends a clear message: meeting the regulatory criteria matters, and USCIS cannot impose subjective standards that go beyond the law.
What Is the “Final Merits Determination” in EB-1A Cases?
Under current USCIS practice, EB-1A petitions are reviewed using a two-step analysis commonly referred to as the Kazarian approach:
-
Step One: The petitioner must meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability.
-
Step Two: USCIS conducts a “final merits determination” to decide whether the evidence, in totality, demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.
While Step Two is intended to be a holistic review, courts have increasingly scrutinized how USCIS applies it—especially when objective evidence is discounted through subjective reasoning.
Why the Nebraska Federal Court Ruling Matters
In this case, the court found that USCIS:
-
Acknowledged the petitioner met the required regulatory criteria
-
Then re-weighed the same evidence under a vague and inconsistent “final merits” standard
-
Effectively imposed extra-regulatory requirements not supported by law
The court ruled that this approach violated the Administrative Procedure Act, concluding that USCIS’s denial was arbitrary and capricious. As a result, the case was sent back with instructions to approve the EB-1A petition—not merely reconsider it.
That distinction is critical.
How This Decision May Affect Future EB-1A Cases
This ruling adds to a growing body of federal court decisions pushing back against overreach in EB-1A adjudications. While USCIS has broad discretion, that discretion is not unlimited.
We expect this decision to:
-
Influence how USCIS applies the “final merits” analysis
-
Strengthen litigation strategies for improperly denied EB-1A cases
-
Encourage more applicants to challenge unlawful denials in federal court
For individuals whose EB-1A petitions were denied despite clearly meeting the regulatory criteria, this case reinforces an important point:
A denial does not always mean the case was weak—it may mean the law was misapplied.
When Litigation May Be an Option After an EB-1A Denial
Federal court litigation is not right for every case—but in situations where USCIS:
-
Ignores or minimizes objective evidence
-
Applies inconsistent or subjective standards
-
Re-litigates criteria already satisfied
Judicial review may be a powerful tool.
At Bogin, Munns & Munns, our Immigration Team evaluates EB-1A denials with a litigation-focused lens, identifying when USCIS has exceeded its authority and when court intervention may be appropriate.
Talk to an Experienced Immigration Attorney
If your EB-1A petition was denied despite strong evidence and compliance with the regulations, it may be worth exploring federal court options.
📞 Contact the Bogin, Munns & Munns Immigration Team to discuss your case and determine whether litigation or refiling is the right next step.
Call or Submit Our Consultation Request Form Today
