by Teodora (Teo) Purcell | Aug 15, 2026 | Uncategorised
For decades, international students, exchange visitors, and foreign media representatives in the United States enjoyed a unique benefit: admission for “duration of status” (D/S), meaning they could remain in the country for as long as they maintained their program requirements, without a fixed expiration date. That era is now over. On July 17, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security, through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, published a final rule in the Federal Register eliminating D/S for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I nonimmigrant media representatives. The rule takes effect September 15, 2026, and it represents one of the most significant structural changes to these visa categories in decades.
What’s Changing
Going forward, F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants will be admitted for a fixed period tied to their program length, capped at four years. I nonimmigrants will generally be admitted for up to 240 days, or just 90 days for most passport holders from the People’s Republic of China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau SAR). Once that fixed period expires, individuals who need more time must file Form I-539 with USCIS for a formal Extension of Stay, or depart the country. The post-completion departure grace period for F-1 students is also shrinking, from 60 days to 30 days going forward. Perhaps most significantly, unlawful presence will now begin accruing automatically the moment an admission period expires, without the formal USCIS or immigration judge finding that D/S previously required. That is a meaningful shift in risk: 180 days of unlawful presence can trigger a 3-year reentry bar, and one year or more can trigger a 10-year bar.
## New Restrictions for F-1 Students The rule doesn’t stop at timing. It also imposes new substantive limits on F-1 students:
– Students generally must complete their first academic year at their initial school before transferring, absent a qualifying SEVP exception.
– Graduate-level students cannot change their educational objective or transfer schools at any point in their program, absent extenuating circumstances.
– Progression between educational levels must move “upward only” — a bachelor’s graduate can move to a master’s or doctorate, but not sideways or down.
– Language-training programs are capped at an aggregate 24 months.
## Transition Relief for Those Already Here DHS built in transition rules to soften the landing for people currently in D/S status. Those individuals may generally remain until their program end date or four years from the effective date, whichever comes first, without needing a corrected Form I-94. F-1 students who timely file for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT on or before March 18, 2027 may only need to file Form I-765, without a separate EOS application — but that relief disappears if the student travels internationally and re-enters during the transition window before filing.
What You Should Do Now
If you are an F-1 student, J-1 exchange visitor, or I nonimmigrant, confirm your program start date and calculate your resulting fixed admission deadline as soon as possible.
If you are currently in D/S, understand which transition rule applies to you, and know that international travel during the transition period will replace your D/S admission with a fixed I-94 date upon reentry.
Employers and universities should begin auditing records now, since recalculating admission periods and identifying who needs to file for an extension will take lead time.
This rule remains subject to congressional review as a major rule, and further guidance from USCIS, ICE, and the State Department is expected before the effective date. Our office is closely monitoring these developments and will provide updates as they occur.
Have questions about how this rule affects your specific situation?
Contact Purcell Law, APC for a consultation. This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any particular situation.
by Teodora (Teo) Purcell | Aug 4, 2026 | Uncategorised
On July 16, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final public charge rule that takes effect September 18, 2026, replacing much of the 2022 framework and giving immigration officers far broader discretion over green card decisions.
What Is the Public Charge Test?
The public charge inadmissibility ground has existed for more than 140 years and allows the government to deny admission or lawful permanent resident (LPR) status to someone deemed likely to depend on government support in the future. It applies to certain applicants for green cards and visas, but by statute it does not apply to humanitarian categories such as refugees, asylees, survivors of domestic violence or trafficking, special immigrant juveniles, and certain parolees — protections that cannot be undone by regulation.
What Changed Under the New Rule
The final rule mirrors the November 2025 proposed rule with no substantive changes, and rescinds most of the 2022 DHS public charge regulations except provisions on public charge bonds. Critically, it does not replace those provisions with a new regulatory framework — DHS instead plans to issue “nonbinding subregulatory guidance” effective the same day, leaving practitioners without clear, binding standards.
Two guardrails from the 2022 rule are eliminated entirely:
- Broader benefits considered. Previously, officers could only weigh cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. Under the new rule, any means-tested public benefit may be considered, though universal and “earned” benefits (Social Security, pensions, unemployment insurance, veterans’ benefits) remain excluded.
- Family members’ benefit use. The 2022 rule explicitly excluded benefits applied for or received on behalf of family members. The new rule allows a dependent’s receipt of means-tested benefits to be treated as evidence of the applicant’s own financial status, if the applicant is legally obligated to support that family member. Source: What Changed With Public Charge (PDF).
The rule also removes the regulatory definition of “public charge” itself, moving away from a “bright line” standard toward officer discretion. Officers must still consider statutory factors — age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, skills, and the affidavit of support — but DHS preserved language allowing “any other information the officer deems relevant”.
Who Does This Apply To?
The DHS rule governs adjustment of status applications filed from inside the U.S. and decided by USCIS. It does not change who is subject to the test — family-based green card applicants and LPRs who leave the country for more than six months remain the primary population affected. Applicants processed through U.S. embassies or consulates abroad fall instead under separate State Department (DOS) policy, which has independently tightened: DOS issued new public charge guidance cables in November 2025, and on January 21, 2026, suspended immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries.
Practical Implications for Clients
- Retroactivity limits. Benefits received before September 18, 2026 — other than the two previously-recognized cash/institutionalization categories — cannot be considered in a public charge determination.
- No single factor is dispositive. DHS’s preamble acknowledges that courts require a totality-of-circumstances analysis; receipt of benefits alone should not automatically trigger a finding of inadmissibility.
- Chilling effect risk. DHS itself estimates the rule will cut government benefit spending by $13 billion annually, largely because eligible U.S. citizens and LPRs — especially children — may avoid enrolling in benefits out of fear, even though the rule does not apply to them directly.
- Exempt categories still protected by statute, even though the regulatory list of exemptions has been removed from the rule’s text.
What This Means for Case Strategy
Because DHS has not yet issued the promised subregulatory guidance or updated forms, the practical contours of officer discretion remain uncertain until closer to the September 18, 2026 effective date. Attorneys should counsel clients carefully before advising them to disenroll from or forgo benefits for themselves or U.S. citizen family members, since the rule does not reach exempt categories, benefits received before the effective date, or non-means-tested programs. Given the discretion built into the rule, strong affidavits of support, clear documentation of assets and employability, and early case assessment will be more important than ever for adjustment of status filings after September 18, 2026.
This post is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Contact our office to discuss how these changes may affect your specific case.
by Teodora (Teo) Purcell | May 27, 2026 | Uncategorised
Updated May 26, 2026
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, titled Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process. The memo has generated significant concern among applicants with pending or planned Form I-485 filings, and for good reason — it signals a shift in how USCIS officers are expected to approach discretionary decisions in green card adjudications.
That said, it is equally important not to overreact. The memorandum does not eliminate adjustment of status, does not create new statutory eligibility requirements, and does not state that USCIS will approve adjustment only in “extraordinary circumstances.” What it does do is instruct officers to look harder at discretionary factors — and that distinction matters enormously, especially for applicants whose facts are mixed or complex.
What the Memo Actually Says
The memo restates a long-standing legal principle: adjustment of status under INA section 245 is a discretionary benefit, not an automatic right. Even when an applicant satisfies every statutory eligibility requirement, USCIS can still deny the application as a matter of discretion. The agency views consular immigrant visa processing abroad as the “ordinary” route to permanent residence and frames adjustment as an exception — an act of “administrative grace” that allows someone to obtain a green card without leaving the United States.
USCIS instructs officers to weigh the totality of the circumstances, including both negative and positive factors, and to consider whether an applicant’s use of adjustment of status amounts to bypassing the ordinary consular process. Critically, the memo states that the absence of adverse factors, by itself, is not enough — applicants may need to show “unusual or outstanding equities” to tip the balance in their favor.
What Remains Unknown: Pending Cases and Future Guidance
One of the most pressing questions after this memo is how it will apply to cases already pending before USCIS. The memo does not explicitly distinguish between applications filed before its issuance and those filed afterward. On its face, it appears to apply immediately, so we can expect the USCIS to issue Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) in pending cases seeking more information about discretionary factors.
For applicants with a pending I-485, the current best practice is:
- Do not panic and do not withdraw. There is no immediate action required in most pending cases.
- Maintain your underlying nonimmigrant status as carefully as possible while the case is pending.
- Consult with counsel to identify any discretionary vulnerabilities in your record before USCIS raises them.
- Be prepared to respond to a discretionary RFE or NOID with organized documentation of positive equities.
USCIS has also signaled that it may issue category-specific guidance in the future targeting particular adjustment pathways or populations. That means the picture may become clearer — or more complicated — in the weeks and months ahead. Litigation challenging the memo is also widely anticipated, and courts may ultimately narrow or block some of its application.
Are H-1B and L-1 Workers Safe?
This is the question we hear most often from employment-based clients, and the honest answer is: H-1B and L-1 workers are comparatively better positioned than most, but they are not insulated from heightened scrutiny.
The memo explicitly acknowledges that filing for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent nonimmigrant category — which includes H-1B and L-1 status. This is an important acknowledgment, as dual intent has always been a recognized feature of these visa categories, meaning that holding an H-1B or L-1 and simultaneously pursuing permanent residence has never been considered improper immigrant intent.
However, the memo goes on to state that merely maintaining lawful dual-intent status is not sufficient, on its own, to guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion. USCIS can still weigh other factors — status gaps, prior violations, employment history, representations made at prior visa applications — and reach a negative discretionary conclusion even for an applicant in valid H-1B or L-1 status.
For H-1B and L-1 applicants with a clean compliance record — consistent maintenance of status, authorized employment only, no prior misrepresentations, and strong positive equities — the practical risk may be relatively lower. But the days of treating a valid H-1B or L-1 status as a near-automatic safety net for the I-485 appear to be over, at least for now.
Non-Dual-Intent Nonimmigrant Status: A Higher Bar
For applicants who entered or currently hold a non-dual-intent nonimmigrant status — including F-1, TN, O-1, B-1/B-2, E-2, and others — the analysis is more complicated and the risks under this memo are meaningfully higher.
Non-dual-intent categories are premised on the applicant’s lack of preconceived immigrant intent at the time of admission. The memo specifically instructs officers to examine whether conduct after admission was inconsistent with the purpose of that admission — and the decision to pursue permanent residence from within the United States, without departing to consular process, is precisely the kind of conduct USCIS is now signaling it will scrutinize.
This does not mean adjustment of status is automatically unavailable to people in these categories. Many F-1 students, TN professionals, and O-1 visa holders successfully adjust status, and the statute still permits it in appropriate cases. What it does mean is that the case strategy, the timing of filing, the immigration history, the maintenance of status, and the consistency of representations across prior visa applications need to be reviewed very carefully. Filing without that analysis may create avoidable risks.
Who Faces the Most Scrutiny
Based on the memo and commentary from other immigration colleagues, we believe that the following groups are most likely to face heightened scrutiny:
- Applicants with any immigration violations overstays, unauthorized employment, failure to maintain nonimmigrant status, prior misrepresentations, or conduct inconsistent with the terms of admission.
- Non-dual-intent visa holders: particularly F-1 students, TN professionals, B-1/B-2 visitors, and others where immigrant intent is analyzed at entry.
- Parole-based applicants: including humanitarian parole populations where USCIS may be looking more closely at whether adjustment was always the intended outcome.
- Applicants with a gap between the purpose of their admission and their path to permanent residence: for example, someone who entered briefly on a tourist visa and quickly transitioned into adjustment proceedings.
Building a Strong Case: Positive Factors Matter
The memo emphasizes that adjudicators must weigh all relevant factors — not only adverse ones. This means that building and presenting a genuine record of positive equities is now more important than ever. Depending on the specific case, favorable factors may include:
- Stable employment in the United States: a history of lawful, authorized work, a skilled profession, and contributions to the U.S. workforce and economy.
- Family ties: U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouses, children, or other close relatives, and the hardship that separation or departure would cause.
- Tax compliance and civic contributions: a documented history of filing U.S. tax returns, paying taxes, and participating in the community.
- Good moral character: consistency in dealings with government agencies, truthfulness in prior applications, and no criminal or fraud history.
- Documented reasons why consular processing is not appropriate: in some cases, an applicant may face significant obstacles to leaving the United States to consular process — including potential inadmissibility grounds, safety or security concerns in the home country, disruption to U.S. employment or family, or prolonged separation. Where consular processing is theoretically available, USCIS will likely want to understand why the applicant chose to pursue adjustment instead, and that explanation should be documented clearly in the record.
What This Means in Practice
The memo is a genuine policy signal – it is a significant development that changes the posture of adjustment adjudications, even if it does not change the underlying statute. Most of us agree that more RFEs, more NOIDs, and more detailed discretionary analysis in denials are likely on the horizon, particularly for cases with any complexity in the immigration history.
At the same time, this is not the end of adjustment of status. Well-prepared applications from applicants with strong equities, clean compliance records, and documented reasons for pursuing adjustment are still approvable. The key is understanding where your case sits in the current adjudicative environment — and making sure the record speaks for itself before USCIS raises questions.
The Bottom Line: Individualized Analysis Is Essential
There is no single answer to what this memo means for any given applicant. The right strategy depends on visa category, status history, compliance record, family and employment ties, travel considerations, potential inadmissibility issues, and whether consular processing is a realistic and safe option for that individual.
If you have a pending I-485, are planning to file, or are evaluating whether adjustment of status or consular processing makes more sense for your situation, now is the right time to seek individualized legal advice.
Purcell Law APC assists clients with adjustment of status strategy, pre-filing risk analysis, and complex mmigration matters. We monitor developments in USCIS policy closely and can help you evaluate how this memo affects your specific case — before USCIS raises the questions for you.
📩 Schedule a consultation with us by calling +1 858 252 1373 or emailing info@purcell, law, or by clicking here.
This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is highly fact-specific. Please consult a licensed immigration attorney to evaluate your individual situation.
by Teodora (Teo) Purcell | Mar 4, 2026 | Uncategorised
If you earned a U.S. master’s degree and are getting ready for the H‑1B lottery, it’s natural to assume your degree qualifies you for the advanced degree cap. Unfortunately, that’s not always true—and getting it wrong can create real problems later.
Below, we explain how the H‑1B cap works, why some U.S. master’s degrees do not qualify for the advanced degree cap, and how you can confirm whether your school meets the legal requirements before registration.
Understanding the H‑1B Cap
Each year, Congress limits the number of new H‑1B visas. USCIS divides these into two groups:
- Regular Cap (65,000 visas): Open to all H‑1B‑eligible professionals with at least a bachelor’s degree. A portion of these visas is reserved for nationals of Chile and Singapore.
- Advanced Degree Cap (20,000 additional visas): Reserved for individuals who earned a master’s degree or higher from a qualifying U.S. institution. This is commonly called the “master’s cap.”
Why the Master’s Cap Is Important
If your degree qualifies for the advanced degree cap, you effectively get two chances in the H‑1B lottery. USCIS first runs the lottery for the regular cap. If you are not selected there, USCIS then conducts a second lottery limited to advanced‑degree‑eligible candidates.
This double opportunity significantly improves selection odds. Under the FY 2027 weighted lottery system (registration opens March 4, 2026), higher‑wage positions receive additional weighting, making master’s cap eligibility even more valuable.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Key takeaway: The master’s cap can be a major advantage—but only if your degree truly qualifies.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why Some Master’s Degrees Don’t Qualify
U.S. immigration law does not recognize every U.S. master’s degree for advanced‑degree cap purposes. To qualify, the degree must be issued by a “United States institution of higher education” as defined by federal law. That definition has five specific requirements, and all of them must be met.
1. The School Must Be Public or Nonprofit
This is the most common issue. Degrees from for‑profit institutions do not qualify for the master’s cap, even if the school is accredited and well known.
For example, an MBA from a private nonprofit university qualifies, while an MBA from a for‑profit school such as DeVry/Keller or University of Phoenix does not. Graduates of for‑profit schools can still be entered under the regular cap, but they do not receive the master’s cap advantage.
2. The School Must Be Accredited
The institution must be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency. While pre‑accreditation may exist in limited circumstances, relying on it is risky for H‑1B purposes.
3. The School Must Admit High School Graduates
The institution must admit only students who have a high school diploma or its equivalent.
4. The School Must Be State‑Authorized
The school must be legally authorized by its state to provide post‑secondary education.
5. The School Must Offer Bachelor’s‑Level Programs
The institution must award bachelor’s degrees or offer qualifying programs that lead to or support graduate‑level study.
Timing Matters More Than You Think
USCIS applies a strict timing rule based on a binding agency decision: the school must meet all of the legal requirements at the time your degree was awarded, not when the H‑1B petition is filed.
What this means in practice:
- If your school was for‑profit or unaccredited when you graduated, your degree does not qualify—even if the school later became nonprofit or accredited.
- If your school was qualifying when you graduated, your degree can still qualify even if the school later lost accreditation or closed.
This timing issue has led to denied petitions, even when employers believed they were filing correctly.
Does the Degree Itself Qualify as a “Master’s”?
USCIS also looks at the nature of the degree itself, not just the school:
- J.D. and M.D. degrees generally qualify because they require prior undergraduate education.
- Doctor of Chiropractic degrees typically do not qualify because they are considered entry‑level degrees.
- Standard M.A., M.S., MBA, M.Eng., and similar graduate degrees from qualifying institutions usually meet the requirement.
How to Check Your School Before Registration
Before registering for the H‑1B lottery, take these steps:
- Use the NCES College Navigator to confirm that the school is public or nonprofit and accredited.
- Verify accreditation with the U.S. Department of Education, paying close attention to accreditation dates.
- Confirm the school’s status at the time of graduation if the institution has changed ownership or accreditation status.
Final Thoughts
Do not assume that a U.S. master’s degree automatically qualifies for the H‑1B advanced degree cap. Verifying eligibility early can prevent delays, RFEs, or denials—and can protect future extensions or transfers.
If you have questions about whether your master’s degree qualifies for the H-1B advanced degree cap, or if you need help with your H-1B petition strategy, contact us for a consultation. We help employers and employees navigate the complexities of the H-1B process every day.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. Please consult a qualified immigration attorney for guidance on your individual situation.
by Teodora (Teo) Purcell | Jan 30, 2026 | Uncategorised
On January 28, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment against U.S. Citizenship Service (USCIS) in an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the denial of an EB1A (extraordinary ability) I140 petition in Mukherji v. Miller. The court vacated USCIS’s denial and remanded the matter with instructions to approve the petition, rather than to reconsider it.
The beneficiary, a journalist, had submitted evidence that USCIS itself found sufficient to satisfy more than the required number of regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Despite this, the agency denied at what it described as the “final merits determination” stage, concluding that the record did not show, in the totality of the circumstances, “sustained national or international acclaim.”
The two step EB1A framework and Kazarian
The Nebraska court framed the central issue as a legal one: whether USCIS lawfully created and implemented a twostep adjudicatory framework for EB1A petitions—including a secondstage “final merits determination”—without going through the APA’s noticeandcomment rulemaking required for substantive or legislative rules.
For years, USCIS has applied a Kazarianderived model: first, determine whether the petitioner has shown a major onetime achievement or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria; second, apply a freefloating “final merits” or “totality” analysis to decide whether the person truly has “extraordinary ability” and “sustained acclaim.” In Mukherji, USCIS conceded that the journalist met five distinct criteria but still denied under this secondstep analysis, focusing heavily on supposed lack of post2015 acclaim and an expectation of continued awards or recognition.
The court does not overrule Kazarian v. USCIS itself—that is a Ninth Circuit decision—but it squarely rejects USCIS’s transformation of Kazarian into a nationwide, twotier framework with an extraregulatory “final merits” overlay that was never adopted through formal rulemaking. In the court’s view, that “final merits determination” is a substantive change to how EB1A is adjudicated and therefore a legislative rule that is invalid absent proper noticeandcomment procedures.
Why the court found USCIS’s approach unlawful
The court identifies several independent problems with USCIS’s adoption and use of the “final merits determination” test:
- The agency originally treated a similar twostep approach as a substantive rule in a 1995 notice of proposed rulemaking but never completed the rulemaking process.
- Years later, USCIS pivoted to the Kazarianstyle twostep framework through policy memoranda—without APA noticeandcomment—while characterizing the change as nonlegislative.
- The Ombudsman had specifically recommended that USCIS use formal rulemaking if it wanted to embed a “final merits determination” as part of an objective twopart test, but the agency did not do so.
- The agency failed to acknowledge that it was discarding a singlestep approach used for nearly two decades and did not provide a reasoned explanation for the change, contrary to standards discussed in Encino Motorcars and similar cases.
The court also relies on Loper Bright Enterprises, emphasizing that courts must exercise independent judgment on legal questions and may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes simply because the statute is unclear. In this postLoper landscape, USCIS cannot expect its internal policy manuals and memoranda to receive Chevronstyle deference when they effectively rewrite the rules.
Practical impact: when litigation can lead to approval
The remedy in Mukherji is especially significant. The court did not just send the case back for another round of adjudication; it vacated the denial and remanded with instructions to approve the EB1A petition. For applicants, this underscores that, in some circumstances, APA litigation can produce a direct and enforceable approval rather than a remand for another “doover.”
At the same time, it is important to keep the decision’s formal reach in perspective. This is a single federal district court decision, not a nationwide injunction or binding precedent across all jurisdictions. USCIS may continue to apply its twostep approach in other cases, and other courts could view the issues differently. Still, Mukherji provides a carefully reasoned judicial analysis that practitioners can cite when challenging denials that rest heavily on the “final merits” concept.
What this means for EB1A and EB1B denials
Although the case arises in the EB1A context, its reasoning naturally extends to EB1B (outstanding professor/researcher) practice. Both categories are governed by statutes and regulations that define evidentiary frameworks, and both have been shaped in practice by internal USCIS guidance and policy memoranda.
Mukherji highlights several scenarios where litigation may be worth evaluating after an EB1A or EB1B denial, including where USCIS:
- Acknowledges that multiple regulatory criteria are met, but then denies based on a shifting, illdefined “final merits” or “totality” analysis.
- Applies an unwritten “recency” or “continuous awards” expectation—as if the law required uninterrupted or yearbyyear recognition at the same peak level.
- Discounts or disregards substantial evidence (awards, judging, leading roles, publications, original contributions) without clearly articulating how that record fails the statutory and regulatory standard.
Because APA litigation focuses on the administrative record and the agency’s rationale, it is not simply another “appeal” to USCIS. A federal court asks whether the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously, abused its discretion, or acted not in accordance with law. Where the agency’s reasoning is inconsistent, unsupported by the record, or anchored in an unlawful framework such as an improperly adopted “final merits determination,” an APA challenge can provide a meaningful remedy.
Have you received an EB1A or EB1B denial?
Many applicants assume that once USCIS says, “You met several criteria, but you failed the final merits determination,” the case is effectively over. Mukherji v. Miller shows that this is not always true.
You should consider having immigration counsel review your EB-1A or EB-1B denial, especially where USCIS:
- Invoked a “final merits determination” or “totality of the evidence” analysis
- Questioned whether your acclaim was “sustained” despite a strong track record
- Concluded, in vague terms, that you were not among a “small percentage at the very top,” even while acknowledging substantial achievements
Because deadlines, venue, and strategy (refiling, administrative appeal, or federal litigation) are timesensitive, it is important to get your case evaluated promptly.
Is now a good time to file EB1A or EB1B cases?
Despite the ongoing use of the “final merits determination” framework by USCIS, Mukherji reinforces that courts are willing to scrutinize extraregulatory hurdles and hold the agency to the statute and regulations. For strong EB1A and EB1B cases—especially where the record clearly satisfies multiple regulatory criteria—this environment can favor welldocumented filings paired with a realistic litigation strategy if needed. At the same time, careful case selection, robust evidence of topoffield achievements, and strategic planning around timing and venue remain critical, given that USCIS has not yet publicly abandoned its twostep approach and other courts may rule differently.
How Purcell Law can help you
Contact us to discuss your EB-1A or EB-1B green card eligibility or whether Mukherji and similar APA arguments may support a federal court challenge, a motion to reopen, or a carefully structured refiling of your EB1A or EB1B petition.
