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 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 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.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's brief only addressed the original petition denial and her eligibility, rather than challenging the Director's most recent decision to dismiss her combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO found that the Petitioner's failure to address why the Director's motion dismissal contained any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact was a sufficient basis for summary dismissal, and by not contesting the motion decision, she abandoned those claims.

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 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 Petitioner failed the final merits determination because his judging experience (Ph.D. theses and tax judge) and scholarly articles (two books and a chapter, last in 2005) lacked evidence of widespread influence or sustained acclaim. His leading role at his law firm and high remuneration (R$10.7 million in 2015) were not sufficiently corroborated as being at the very top of the field compared to peers. Awards from Corporate INTL and Analise Advocacia 500 were not proven to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence.