Date of Decision: July 30, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Attorney and Managing Partner
Field: Transnational Corporate Law
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria, but the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner served as a judge for Ph.D. dissertations and legal proceedings related to tax law and other specialized areas.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored two law books and a book chapter, which were cited in legal discussions.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner held a leading role as the managing partner of a prestigious Brazilian law firm.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
While the petitioner demonstrated participation in Ph.D. dissertation panels and judicial roles, the AAO determined that these activities did not establish that he garnered sustained acclaim in his field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored legal publications, but their citation history and overall influence were insufficient to establish widespread recognition or extraordinary impact in the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner held a managing partner role in a distinguished law firm, but evidence did not establish that his role resulted in national or international acclaim.
Awards and Recognition:
The petitioner received several awards, including recognition from Corporate INTL Magazine and a ranking in a legal profession yearbook. However, the AAO found insufficient evidence of their national or international significance.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles from various sources, but most lacked focus on his individual achievements or failed to meet the standards of major trade or professional media.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s income exceeded industry averages, but the evidence failed to demonstrate that his earnings were commensurate with those at the very top of the field.
Final Merits Determination:
Despite meeting three regulatory criteria, the AAO determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Activities: Records of participation in Ph.D. dissertation panels and legal judging.
Authorship Evidence: Two law books and a book chapter with citation evidence.
Awards Evidence: Documentation of awards and rankings, with limited corroboration of significance.
Salary Evidence: Income records and comparative salary data, insufficiently contextualized.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field.
