All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish satisfaction for at least three categories of evidence. The AAO found that articles submitted were about the Petitioner's books, not about the Petitioner, thus failing the 'published material about the alien' criterion. Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide proper comparative data for royalty-based remuneration to satisfy the 'high salary' criterion, as the submitted data was for traditional salaries.

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.