NRI PULSE STAFF REPORT
The U.S. government has withdrawn its appeal in a closely watched immigration case involving an Indian journalist whose challenge to a green card denial sparked a broader debate over how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) evaluates applicants for the prestigious EB-1A “extraordinary ability” category.
The case, Mukherji v. USCIS, centers on Anahita Mukherji, a journalist whose EB-1A petition was denied despite USCIS finding that she met five of the category’s eligibility criteria—well above the minimum requirement of three.
Immigration attorneys reported this week that the Department of Justice has dropped its appeal of a January federal court ruling in Mukherji’s favor, allowing that decision to stand.
The development is being viewed as a significant victory for EB-1A applicants, although attorneys caution that it does not change USCIS policy nationwide.
The EB-1A category is one of the most sought-after employment-based immigration pathways because it allows individuals with extraordinary ability in fields such as science, education, business, athletics, the arts, and journalism to apply for permanent residence without employer sponsorship.
Mukherji filed her petition in 2024. USCIS agreed that she satisfied five of the regulatory criteria used to evaluate extraordinary ability applicants. However, the agency denied her petition during a second stage of review known as the “final merits determination,” concluding that she had not demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required for approval.
Rather than accepting the denial, Mukherji sued USCIS in federal court in Nebraska.
The case quickly attracted attention from immigration lawyers because it challenged USCIS’s long-standing use of the final merits review.
Under the agency’s current approach, applicants must first satisfy at least three of ten regulatory criteria, which may include published material about their work, judging the work of others, original contributions to their field, or other recognized achievements. USCIS then conducts a separate final review to determine whether the applicant has truly risen to the top of the profession.
Critics argue that this second step gives immigration officers broad discretion to deny petitions even after applicants have met the established criteria.
In January 2026, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled in Mukherji’s favor. The court found that USCIS had improperly adopted its final merits framework through policy guidance rather than formal rulemaking procedures. The judge also concluded that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and ordered USCIS to approve Mukherji’s petition.
The Department of Justice appealed the ruling in April. However, the government has now withdrawn that appeal, leaving the district court’s decision intact.
While the withdrawal preserves a favorable ruling for Mukherji and other applicants challenging similar denials, it stops short of creating a nationwide legal precedent. Because the appeal was dropped before an appellate court could rule, USCIS is not required to change its practices across the country.
Nevertheless, immigration attorneys say the case remains an important precedent and may strengthen future challenges to EB-1A denials based on subjective final-merits assessments.
The case is of particular interest to Indian professionals, researchers, physicians, entrepreneurs, academics, artists, and journalists, many of whom rely on the EB-1A category as a pathway to permanent residence without employer sponsorship.
Cover photo courtesy: Anahita Mukherji/LinkedIn.
