EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided July 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL302024_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A Brazilian attorney and law firm managing partner in transnational corporate law sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because, although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Petitioner served on Ph.D. dissertation committees in allied field, making final judgment on doctoral requirements.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner served as managing partner at law firm with critical role in transnational corporate law.
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored scholarly works published in professional legal publications.
What was missing
- Final merits · Totality of evidence insufficient; judging and publications do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place petitioner in small percentage at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner served on Ph.D. dissertation committees in allied field, making final judgment on doctoral requirements. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Petitioner served as managing partner at law firm with critical role in transnational corporate law. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner authored scholarly works published in professional legal publications. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate criterion beyond totality assessment. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate criterion beyond totality assessment. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate criterion beyond totality assessment. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate criterion beyond totality assessment. |
 Final merits | Not met | Totality of evidence insufficient; judging and publications do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place petitioner in small percentage at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.