General And Operations Manager

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner did not provide specific arguments or evidence to overcome the Director's findings regarding memberships, published materials, original contributions, scholarly articles, artistic displays, or leading roles. Consequently, the Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the top of the field.

The Petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion because the claimed award was internal to his employer and lacked national or international recognition. The scholarly articles criterion was not met as the publications (e.g., DC Velocity, Logistics Management) were not proven to be major media or professional trade publications with significant circulation. The high salary claim was rejected because the Petitioner's salary of $182,000 fell below the 67th percentile for his occupation in New Jersey, and his original contributions were found to be significant only to his employer rather than the field as a whole.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only met two criteria: scholarly articles and published material. The 'original contributions' criterion was not met as patents alone do not prove major significance without evidence of widespread industry adoption. The 'high remuneration' criterion failed because the Petitioner's total compensation (salary plus bonuses) was compared against industry averages of base salary only, preventing a valid comparison. Additionally, the 'leading or critical role' and 'membership' criteria were not satisfied due to lack of evidence regarding the organizations' distinguished reputations and the nature of the Petitioner's individual membership.