EB-1A Denial Overturned Through Federal Litigation: Cybersecurity Professional’s Petition Approved by Colombo & Hurd Litigation Team 

Our client had spent his career helping organizations keep complex, high-stakes systems secure and running reliably, work that put him in a position to publish scholarly research, judge the work of other professionals, and take on leadership roles at respected institutions. His compensation reflected that standing, well above others in his line of work. 

Central to that career was something he had built himself: a professional framework designed to help organizations assess, optimize, and get more value from complex cybersecurity and observability environments. Other companies had gone on to adopt it in practice, supporting his claim to an original contribution of major significance, one of several criteria his filing was built to satisfy. 

Despite that record, USCIS issued two Requests for Evidence (RFEs) before denying the petition. The second RFE requested evidence that was substantially similar to the first and phrased in nearly identical language, without engaging with the petitioner’s earlier response.  

The denial itself reflected this gap, addressing only the second RFE with no reference to the first or the response submitted to address it. It raised serious questions about whether the agency had fully considered the evidence and applied the EB-1A framework consistently throughout the adjudication.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency’s failure to meaningfully address evidence in the record is grounds for judicial review. Petitioners can challenge a denial in U.S. district court, where a judge can set aside agency rulings that are “arbitrary and capricious,” including decisions that lack a reasoned explanation or fail to consider important aspects of the record. 

Attorney Wilson, who leads Colombo & Hurd’s federal litigation practice and previously served as Assistant Director in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation and Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, filed suit under the APA on the petitioner’s behalf. 

The complaint traced the case’s full history, from the initial filing, through both RFEs, and to the final denial. It argued that USCIS had never explained why the extensive evidence on file, including expert testimony, proof that others had adopted the petitioner’s professional framework, publication records, and compensation data, fell short of the extraordinary ability standard. It also argued that USCIS had not considered the record as a whole or provided the reasoned analysis federal law requires. 

After the federal complaint was filed, USCIS reopened the petition for further review and subsequently approved it. 

A denial is not necessarily the final answer. Federal litigation may be worth a closer look when USCIS overlooks or fails to address material evidence already in the record, when a decision reflects a legal or factual error, or when the denial does not adequately explain the basis for the decision. It isn’t, however, appropriate for every denial. Whether it makes sense depends on the strength of the underlying petition and the specific reasoning, or lack of it, in USCIS’s decision. 

“This result came down to building a record that showed exactly where the agency’s reasoning fell short,” said Attorney Wilson. “When an agency decision does not fairly engage with the record or apply the governing legal standards consistently, federal court review may provide an important path to relief.” 

For petitioners facing a similar situation, Colombo & Hurd’s federal litigation attorneys can evaluate the underlying filing, USCIS’s decision, and the available legal options to determine whether a federal challenge could provide a path forward.