EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided March 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR192020_02B2203
JudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An international tax attorney specializing claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found his bar association membership, published work, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role all unmet. Lacking three criteria and evidence of sustained international acclaim, the petition was dismissed.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Judging · Judging junior attorneys in prior role not adequately documented in record.
- Leading or critical role · Insufficient evidence of leading or critical role; no evidence of law firm's distinguished reputation or petitioner's role's significance.
- Membership · No evidence that High Court Bar Association membership requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.
- Original contributions · Court victories defending established legal positions lack originality; impact on parties does not demonstrate major significance to field.
- Published material · Articles not about petitioner do not meet criterion; media coverage was of discussion panel, not petitioner's work.
- Scholarly articles · Two articles published only on law firm website do not qualify as professional or major trade publications.
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Not met | Judging junior attorneys in prior role not adequately documented in record. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Insufficient evidence of leading or critical role; no evidence of law firm's distinguished reputation or petitioner's role's significance. |
 Membership | Not met | No evidence that High Court Bar Association membership requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Court victories defending established legal positions lack originality; impact on parties does not demonstrate major significance to field. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles not about petitioner do not meet criterion; media coverage was of discussion panel, not petitioner's work. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Two articles published only on law firm website do not qualify as professional or major trade publications. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.