Postsecondary Teacher

The petitioner failed to provide clear evidence of intent to continue work in the claimed area of expertise (postsecondary teaching) as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). The record contained no history of teaching experience, and the evidence submitted (ABA roles, UN congress organization) pertained to legal practice rather than education. Consequently, the AAO did not reach a final merits determination on the specific EB-1A criteria.

The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner reargued eligibility claims already considered in previous decisions without providing new facts or legal errors. The Petitioner's reference to new employment as a research scientist did not establish that the prior motion dismissal was erroneous.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to address or dispute the Director's finding regarding the intent to continue work in the area of expertise in the United States, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). This uncontested ground was deemed waived and was dispositive of the appeal. The AAO noted the petitioner's May 2023 statement lacked detailed plans and corroborating evidence for seeking research positions at listed institutions.

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO found she only met the 'scholarly articles' criterion, failing to demonstrate eligibility for 'lesser prizes or awards,' 'membership,' 'judging,' 'original contributions of major significance,' or 'high salary.' The decision emphasized that her work, while showing potential, did not establish *already realized* major significance or sustained national/international acclaim, which is required for individuals at the very top of their field.