All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet at least three EB-1A criteria; specifically, the published materials were not 'about' the petitioner, and the original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the legal field. While the petitioner provided letters of support and salary data, the letters lacked specific examples of field-wide influence, and the salary data compared a law firm partner to general lawyers using non-contemporaneous metrics. No criteria were found to be satisfied upon de novo review.

The Petitioner failed to meet any of the 10 EB-1A criteria upon de novo review. Specifically, memberships did not require outstanding achievements, published materials were promotional or lacked circulation data, and displays were commercial trade shows rather than artistic exhibitions. Additionally, the final merits review found that 7 million Google Street View hits and local client letters did not constitute sustained national acclaim.

The Petitioner satisfied only 2 criteria (published material and scholarly articles) instead of the required 3. Awards like 'Top of Business 2023' and 'Female Personality of the Year' lacked evidence of national recognition for excellence in the specific field. Her salary of R$540,000 was not shown to be high compared to other self-employed attorneys managing multiple businesses.

The Petitioner failed all claimed EB-1A criteria; published materials were identified as press releases with no established authorship, and original contributions were found to be techniques learned in a 240-hour training course rather than developed by the Petitioner. Evidence of artistic display was deemed commercial rather than artistic, and letters of support contained significant anomalies, such as using the future tense for past events and missing contact information. No criteria were satisfied.

The Petitioner won over a dozen awards between 2016-2021 and published two books, but failed to show their industry impact (e.g., only 104 copies sold). While he judged six competitions, the record lacked specific selection criteria to prove he was at the top of the field. Media coverage was found to be general event promotion rather than coverage of the Petitioner's specific extraordinary achievements.

The Petitioner met only one criterion (published material). The 'original contributions' claim was rejected because his software lacked evidence of widespread adoption or substantial influence beyond his own clients, with 'views' data being insufficient. The 'leading or critical role' claim failed because, although he held a leadership position in his own firm, the record did not establish the company had a 'distinguished reputation' marked by eminence or excellence.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three EB-1A criteria. Specifically, evidence for published material was deemed non-probative due to blanket translation certifications and lack of circulation metrics; the judging criterion was unmet as it involved undergraduate students rather than professionals; and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance or broad industry impact. The record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.

The Petitioner failed to respond to specific evidentiary shortcomings identified in an RFE, rendering those arguments procedurally barred on appeal. Substantively, the record lacked evidence of a one-time major achievement or documentation satisfying at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate being part of the small percentage at the very top of the field or having a career of acclaimed work.