International Consultant Specializing In Strategic Communications And Global Development

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient objective evidence to meet at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, participation as a judge of others' work, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, or high remuneration. While two criteria (published material and leading role) were initially met, the evidence was not sustained, and the record did not show the Petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of her field, especially lacking sustained prominence in later years.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements, establishing only one of the ten criteria (leading or critical role) instead of the required three. Specific criteria like awards, memberships, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, exhibitions, and high salary were not met due to issues such as awards given to the employer, job duties not qualifying as judging, lack of full English translations for articles, contributions not proven to be of major significance, and insufficient comparative wage data for the high salary claim. The AAO concluded the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.