Postsecondary Teacher

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.

The AAO dismissed the motions because the Petitioner failed to provide evidence of intent to work as a postsecondary teacher at the time of filing, such as letters from prospective employers, prearranged commitments, or a detailed statement of plans. Evidence submitted largely related to events after the January 2013 filing date, which is not considered. The Petitioner's SJD degree and part-time research assistant experience were deemed insufficient to establish intent or experience as a postsecondary teacher. Prior petitions claiming intent to work as a self-employed lawyer were also noted.

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 overcome the Director's analysis. Specifically, the petitioner abandoned claims for awards and high salary. She did not provide evidence that her memberships required outstanding achievements judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. Furthermore, she failed to demonstrate that publications about her work were of the regulatory required types, or that her original contributions significantly impacted the field through incremental recognition. Finally, she did not adequately show she performed in a leading or critical role of significance to the entity.