lawrota.com

The Anahita Mukherji v. Loren K. Miller ruling is significant because it strikes a direct blow to a 15-year-old USCIS framework that has been used to deny thousands of “extraordinary ability” (EB-1A) petitions. For years, applicants have complained that USCIS “moves the goalposts” by adding a subjective second step to the evaluation process; this court ruling finally agrees that such a step was adopted unlawfully.

Here are the specific reasons why this case is a landmark for the immigration community:

1. It Invalidates the “Subjective” Second Step

Since 2010, USCIS has used a “Two-Step Evidentiary Review” (often called the Kazarian framework).

• Step 1: Adjudicators count whether you meet 3 of 10 objective criteria.
• Step 2: Adjudicators conduct a “Final Merits Determination” to see if you are truly at the top of your field.

The court ruled that this second step was a “legislative rule” that USCIS implemented via policy memos without the required public notice-and-comment period. Because USCIS bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the “final merits” test was declared invalid from its inception.

2. It Ends the Requirement for “Indefinite” Acclaim

USCIS often denies cases by claiming that even if an applicant was extraordinary in the past, they haven’t proven they are “still” at the very top today. The court rejected this “indefinite acclaim” standard, stating that the law does not require an individual to stay perpetually at the peak of their field to qualify for the visa.

3. A Rare “Court-Ordered” Approval

In most immigration lawsuits, if a judge finds an error, they simply send the case back to USCIS to try again (a “remand”). In this case, Judge Joseph F. Bataillon took the rare step of ordering USCIS to approve the petition immediately because there was “nothing else left for the Agency to do” once the illegal second step was removed.

4. It Restores “Independent Judgment” (Post-Loper Bright)

The ruling is one of the first major examples of a court using its new power under the Loper Bright Supreme Court decision. Instead of deferring to the USCIS Policy Manual as the “expert” interpretation of the law, the court exercised its own “independent judgment” to decide that the agency’s internal guidance was arbitrary and capricious.

5. Massive Ripple Effects for Other Categories

While this case specifically involved an EB-1A journalist, the “Final Merits” test is also used for:

• EB-1B: Outstanding Professors and Researchers.
• O-1A: Nonimmigrants of Extraordinary Ability.

This ruling provides a blueprint for attorneys nationwide to challenge denials in all of these categories, potentially opening the door for many previously denied high-talent individuals to reopen their cases.