Challenging EB-1A Denials
through Federal Litigation

For many high-achieving professionals, the EB-1A Extraordinary Ability petition represents a meaningful step toward continuing their contributions in the United States. A denial, especially after years of building a distinguished career, can feel unexpected. But a denial is not the end of the road. In some situations, federal court litigation offers a path to seek an independent review of the agency’s decision. 

At Colombo & Hurd, our Federal Immigration Litigation Practice is led by Sarah Wilson, a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). She guides individuals seeking to challenge denials through a careful, evidence-based strategy rooted in deep knowledge of immigration law and federal court practice.  

Understanding the EB-1A Standard: What It Really Means to Be “Extraordinary” 

The EB-1A is designed for individuals who have achieved sustained national or international acclaim across fields such as the sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics. Because it is a self-sponsored pathway, petitioners retain full control of the process rather than relying on an employer.  

To qualify, individuals must demonstrate extraordinary ability through either a major internationally recognized award or by satisfying multiple regulatory criteria, such as evidence of significant contributions, published material about their work, original achievements of major significance, or selective judging and membership indicators. While the criteria themselves appear straightforward, the interpretation of those criteria has evolved significantly over time. 

The Evolution of “Extraordinary” Scrutiny 

Over the years, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has refined its interpretation of what qualifies as “extraordinary ability.” Changes in policy guidance, case law, and adjudicator training have produced a noticeable shift: publications, citations, and awards are examined with far greater rigor; petitioners are expected to clearly demonstrate the significance of their work; and the final merits analysis typically involves a more detailed explanation of how an individual’s achievements rise above general professional excellence.  

Adjudicators increasingly focus on distinguishing contributions that meaningfully advance a field from achievements that demonstrate strong professional performance but do not show broader influence or impact. 

These evolving standards mean that even well-documented records can encounter denials rooted not in the substance of a petitioner’s achievements, but in how the adjudicator assessed or interpreted the evidence. When the reasoning behind a denial appears inconsistent with governing law or established precedent, federal litigation can serve as a meaningful avenue to ensure the appropriate standards are applied. 

 Navigating Today’s Increasingly Rigorous EB-1A Landscape 

Recent years have brought more Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID), along with a closer examination of the significance, independence, and impact of a petitioner’s work. Common themes in denials include: 

• Evidence that was discounted or not fully addressed 
• Achievements framed too narrowly within a single employer or institution 
• Contributions that were significant but not sufficiently contextualized 
• Insufficient explanation of how the field has recognized, adopted, or relied on the petitioner’s work 

These denials do not necessarily reflect a lack of extraordinary ability. Rather, they often reveal gaps between the record presented and the way USCIS interpreted that record. 

Challenging USCIS Denials in Federal Court 

After an EB-1A denial, petitioners typically consider administrative motions or appeals within USCIS. These options may be appropriate depending on the case. However, they remain in internal agency reviews. For individuals seeking an external assessment of the legal or procedural reasoning in their denial, federal court litigation offers an alternative path. 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal judge may review whether:

• The agency applied the correct legal standard 
• The reasoning in the decision was adequately supported 
• Relevant evidence was overlooked or improperly weighed 
• The decision was arbitrary, capricious, or inconsistent with established procedures 
• Some cases move forward to judicial review. Others resolve earlier if the agency agrees to reevaluate the petition. For denials that involve prolonged or unexplained delays, some petitioners may also consider a mandamus action to request court oversight. The best approach depends on the specifics of each case. 
• Our team conducts a comprehensive review of the petition, supporting evidence, and decisions. When federal litigation is appropriate, we prepare the complaint and present the administrative record clearly and accurately.