Others

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 to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Although the Petitioner provided a copy of a supplemental brief, it was incorrectly mailed to Arizona instead of the AAO, and the Petitioner offered no new facts to overcome the grounds for the original dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting three initial criteria. Evidence of published material about the Petitioner was limited to 2023-2024, failing to show sustained acclaim over a long period. A single article published in 1990 lacked evidence of citations or sustained acclaim. A leading or critical role in 2014 also lacked evidence of sustained acclaim. Contributions to employers were noted, but major significance to the broader field of Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production was not established. Furthermore, the record lacked comparative salary data to prove a high salary in relation to others in the field, which would indicate being at the very top.