Attorney And Managing Partner

The motion to reconsider 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. His judging experience (five Ph.D. thesis reviews) was not deemed indicative of national acclaim. His authorship of two law books and one chapter (1995-2005) lacked corroborating evidence of widespread citation or impact. While he held a leading role as a managing partner, the evidence did not show this role garnered national acclaim. His original contributions, such as arguing a case that declared a law unconstitutional in Brazil, lacked sufficient detail and corroborating evidence of major significance beyond solicited letters. Media coverage was limited and often not about him or his specific work. His reported compensation of R$10,713,428 in 2015 was not adequately compared to other managing partners in his field, and the provided salary data for attorneys was not contemporaneous or reliable for comparison.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, membership in the Egyptian Bar Association was deemed mandatory for practicing lawyers, not indicative of outstanding achievement. The Petitioner also failed to identify any distinguished organization for which he held a leading or critical role, and his claims of high remuneration were not supported by comparative evidence. The AAO found that the submitted evidence, including client letters, did not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Although the Beneficiary met three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading/critical role), the evidence lacked sufficient significance. Specifically, his judging experience (one committee, one book review) and single authored article (76 citations) were not shown to be widely recognized or impactful compared to top professionals. Recommendation letters and salary were also deemed insufficient to establish widespread acclaim.

The appeal is dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, publications about her in major media (due to lack of certified translations and independent evidence), original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations, or high remuneration for services (due to insufficient corroborating evidence). The Petitioner also abandoned claims for display of work and commercial successes.