Director And Associate 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 motion to reconsider was dismissed as untimely (filed 45 days after the decision). The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish the third required criterion (published material), as the record lacked circulation and comparative data for Venture Capital Journal. Additionally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the delay in filing was beyond his control.

The appeal was dismissed because, despite the Petitioner satisfying three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading role), the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The activities cited, such as judging, authoring articles, and holding a leading role, were primarily limited to a short period (2021-2023, mostly 2023) immediately preceding the petition filing in 2023, failing to show a 'career of acclaimed work.' Additionally, memberships in BCS and IEEE were not deemed to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and the high salary claim lacked comparison to top-level peers with similar experience and responsibilities.

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.