If you are in the process of preparing to submit an EB-1A petition — or contemplating whether to appeal or litigate a denial — a recent federal court ruling may be particularly pertinent to your approach. On January 28, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment to a petitioner of extraordinary ability and mandated that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approve the case after determining that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Although this ruling does not automatically alter the adjudication of EB-1A petitions across the nation, it provides crucial insight into how federal courts may assess USCIS decisions — and what applicants should comprehend prior to filing, refiling, or contesting a denial.

The case involved an Indian national journalist who submitted an I-140 petition seeking classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. USCIS acknowledged that she met several regulatory criteria but nonetheless denied the petition at what is commonly referred to as the “final merits” stage. The court overturned the denial and remanded the case with directives to approve, concluding that the agency failed to adequately justify its reasoning.

For prospective EB-1A applicants, this outcome is significant as it underscores an important reality: even when USCIS acknowledges compelling evidence, denials can still occur if adjudicators determine that the overall record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim. However, the decision also illustrates that such determinations are not immune to judicial review.

To comprehend the significance of this ruling, it is beneficial to analyze the adjudicative framework in question. Currently, USCIS assesses EB-1A petitions through a two-step process. Initially, the officer ascertains whether the petitioner satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria (unless the applicant possesses a major internationally recognized award). Subsequently, the officer performs a more comprehensive evaluation to determine if the individual ranks among the elite few in the field and has attained sustained national or international recognition.

In this instance, the court concluded that USCIS implemented this second-step ‘final merits determination’ without adhering to the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Federal agencies hold only the authority granted by Congress, and when they enact substantive rules, they are required to follow established procedural safeguards.

The court indicated that the agency altered its adjudicative methodology without sufficiently recognizing the change or providing a rationale for it, which rendered the policy adoption procedurally flawed.

For individuals contemplating an EB-1A application, the key takeaway is not that the two-step framework has been abolished — it has not — but rather that courts anticipate USCIS to offer clear, legally substantiated justifications when rejecting a petition. The court highlighted that agencies are permitted to modify policies, but they must show awareness of the change and provide valid reasons for it.

When an agency abandons a long-standing approach without justification, such inconsistency may indicate arbitrary decision-making according to administrative law principles. In practical terms, this implies that ambiguous or conclusory denials could be susceptible to challenge.

One of the most applicant-friendly elements of the ruling is the court’s dismissal of what many practitioners informally refer to as the “stay at the top” expectation. USCIS had concentrated on whether the petitioner continued to receive awards and publicity in recent years, effectively implying that extraordinary ability must be consistently validated through ongoing recognition. The court determined that there was no statutory foundation for such a requirement and noted that nothing in the law compels an individual to remain perpetually at the pinnacle of their field. Indeed, the court remarked that it was undisputed that the petitioner had attained that level.

For applicants whose most significant achievements took place earlier in their careers — a frequent situation for senior professionals, researchers, and executives — this reasoning may offer reassurance that extraordinary ability is assessed based on the entirety of accomplishments rather than a limited scope of recent publicity.

Another notable aspect of the ruling is the remedy imposed by the court. Instead of remanding the case to USCIS for further consideration, the judge concluded that there was “nothing else left for the Agency to do” and mandated approval.

Federal courts generally hesitate to take this action, preferring to allow agencies to reevaluate petitions under corrected legal standards. When a court orders approval, it often indicates a belief that the administrative record overwhelmingly supports eligibility or that the agency’s reasoning was fundamentally flawed. For individuals contemplating whether to contest a denial in federal court, this illustrates that meaningful relief is attainable in suitable cases.

The decision also signifies a broader transformation in administrative law that may indirectly influence immigration petitions. The court reiterated that judges must exercise independent judgment when assessing whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority rather than automatically deferring to agency interpretations of the law.

While this does not imply that courts will frequently reverse EB-1A denials, it indicates that agencies might encounter increased scrutiny when enforcing policies without formal rulemaking or when imposing requirements that lack a basis in statute or regulation.

Nevertheless, despite these positive aspects, it is essential to recognize the limitations of the ruling. Primarily, this is a decision from a federal district court. It serves as persuasive authority but is not binding on USCIS across the nation, and the agency is not obligated to modify its adjudicative framework as a consequence. Officers will almost certainly persist in applying the final merits analysis unless higher courts intervene. For applicants, this suggests that the decision should be regarded as supportive context rather than a promise of a more lenient adjudication environment.

Additionally, the case is highly fact-specific. The petitioner provided substantial documentation of excellence, including recommendation letters and evidence of significant professional contributions, and USCIS had already recognized that she satisfied multiple criteria. Generally, courts are more inclined to intervene when the evidentiary record strongly supports the applicant. Therefore, individuals contemplating litigation should assess their cases realistically; federal court is not a replacement for constructing a strong petition.

Finally, the long-term implications of the decision may hinge on whether it is appealed and how other courts react. If similar rulings arise across jurisdictions, USCIS could ultimately face pressure to formalize aspects of EB-1A adjudication through regulation. Conversely, if appellate courts restrict the reasoning, its impact may remain primarily strategic rather than doctrinal. Currently, the decision serves as a significant data point rather than a sweeping change in extraordinary ability law.

What implications does this hold for individuals currently preparing an EB-1A petition? The most significant takeaway is the ongoing necessity of creating a thoroughly documented and well-structured record that clearly illustrates both eligibility according to the criteria and sustained recognition within the field. Although courts may closely examine agency reasoning, the most effective safeguard against denial is a persuasive evidentiary narrative. Applicants should expect a comprehensive review and proactively clarify how their accomplishments collectively demonstrate that they rank among the leading professionals in their area of expertise.

For those who have previously faced a denial, this decision highlights that not all adverse outcomes are definitive. When USCIS fails to provide specific justifications, relies on unspoken standards, or dismisses substantial evidence without adequate explanation, pursuing judicial review may be a viable option to consider with knowledgeable legal counsel. While litigation may not be suitable in every situation, this ruling exemplifies that courts can and do hold agencies accountable when they neglect procedural requirements.

Simultaneously, it is important to exercise caution. Misinterpreting the decision could result in unrealistic expectations. It does not negate the final merits assessment, nor does it guarantee that courts will question every discretionary decision. Instead, it reinforces a core principle: immigration agencies must function within legal parameters and offer reasoned justifications for their decisions.

In conclusion, the Nebraska ruling is significant but not revolutionary. It indicates a growing judicial readiness to scrutinize how USCIS arrives at its conclusions, confirms that extraordinary ability does not necessitate continuous acclaim, and illustrates that federal courts can provide substantial relief when agency reasoning is inadequate. However, its authority is still limited, and its wider implications will only become apparent if other courts embrace similar reasoning.

For individuals considering applying for the EB-1A visa and for those assessing their options following a denial, this decision provides both motivation and insight. It serves as a reminder that although the criteria for extraordinary ability are stringent, they are not beyond scrutiny — and that thorough preparation, strategic planning, and knowledgeable legal advice are essential components of achieving success.

By: Karim Jivani

Karim Jivani is an Associate Attorney at Reddy Neumann Brown PC who focuses on employment-based non-immigrant visas. Karim’s practice covers all phases of the EB-1A and EB-2 NIW visa process including filing petitions, responding to Requests for Evidence (RFE), and drafting motions and appeals. Karim has also worked on all aspects of H-1B, L-1, I-140, and VAWA petitions.

Karim earned his Bachelor of Business Administration degree from Houston Baptist University and his J.D. from University of Houston Law Center in May 2019. During his time in law school, Karim served as an Articles Editor for the Houston Business and Tax Law Journal, a student managed publication dedicated to scholarly research and the academic advancement of business, tax, and corporate law. He was part of the Civil Practice Clinic and Immigration Clinic, where he gained his passion for immigration law. As a child of immigrants, he hopes to continue to play a role in helping individuals start their life in the United States as well as help them navigate the complex and difficult immigration process. He is fluent in English, Urdu, and Hindi.