On January 28, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment to an EB-1A petitioner and set aside USCIS’s denial of an I-140 extraordinary ability petition. For context, foreign nationals file EB-1A green card petitions when they believe they have “extraordinary abilities” or are at the top of their field. The Court held that USCIS unlawfully adopted and applied its two-step adjudication framework—particularly its “final merits determination”—without engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court also found the denial arbitrary and capricious, emphasizing that USCIS accepted the petitioner’s evidence under five regulatory criteria but did not articulate a clear, reviewable standard explaining why she nonetheless failed to meet the extraordinary ability threshold. Ultimately, the court directed the USCIS to approve the EB-1A petition.
The two-step framework isn’t gone, but its use is now more contestable. The court did not invalidate Kazarian (the two step adjudication framework) nationwide, and USCIS has not changed its policy manual. But the decision undercuts USCIS’s ability to treat the “final merits determination” as an extra-regulatory veto that can override conceded criteria without a clear, lawful rationale. It also reinforces that if USCIS is using a second-step framework as a binding rule, petitioners now have a stronger argument that it must be grounded in law.
If you believe your EB-1A petition was unjustly denied under the two-step adjudication framework or you’re interested in an EB-1A green card petition, please reach out to Murray Osorio PLLC.