This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for EB-1A classification. Specifically, the AAO found the petitioner did not meet the criteria for lesser awards, published material, or high salary.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a personnel management consultant active in Russian-speaking and post-Soviet countries, sought EB-1A classification but could not demonstrate a major internationally recognized award or satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found that a Russian government-issued award was not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized beyond the issuing agency. Articles submitted as published material either lacked circulation statistics or were identified as paid press releases. Evidence of high salary was undermined by the absence of comparable Russian market data and by reliance on average U.S. consultant earnings, which is insufficient to establish compensation that is high relative to others in the field. Because the petitioner failed all three analyzed criteria, the AAO did not reach the other two claimed criteria and dismissed the appeal without conducting a final merits determination.
What failed: 1. The government-issued award did not demonstrate national or international recognition beyond the issuing agency — no media coverage or broader field awareness was shown. 2. Published articles either lacked circulation statistics needed to qualify as major media or professional publications, or were identified as paid press releases rather than independent editorial content. 3. Salary comparisons relied on impermissible foreign-to-USD conversion and comparison to average earnings rather than top earners in the field, and corroborating evidence for U.S. hourly earnings was absent.
Takeaway: Petitioners in business or consulting fields should document award recognition through independent media coverage and provide verifiable circulation data for all publications. Salary comparisons must use compensation surveys benchmarking against top earners in the field — not averages — and must be corroborated by verifiable financial records.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The government-issued award did not demonstrate national or international recognition beyond the issuing agency — no media coverage or broader field awareness was shown
- Published articles either lacked circulation statistics needed to qualify as major media or professional publications, or were identified as paid press releases rather than independent editorial content
- Salary comparisons relied on impermissible foreign-to-USD conversion and comparison to average earnings rather than top earners in the field, and corroborating evidence for U.S
- hourly earnings was absent.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metPetitioner received an award from a Russian Federation governmental entity in 2017, but failed to show the award was nationally or internationally recognized beyond the issuing agency. No public reporting or broad field awareness was demonstrated. Director's conclusion appeared to be a typographical error stating criterion was met despite negative analysis; AAO made its own assessment and found it not met.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles submitted lacked circulation statistics needed to qualify as professional/major trade publications or major media. One Business Insider article was identified as a paid press release distributed via PRWeb, undermining its credibility as independent published material.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metPetitioner's foreign earnings lacked comparable Russian market data. U.S. earnings were compared only to average consultant earnings rather than top earners. USCIS policy prohibits converting foreign earnings to USD for comparison. Corroborating evidence for U.S. hourly rate claims was absent. Letters claiming top consultant earnings were conclusory and uncorroborated.
Award from Russian Federation governmental entity — not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized beyond the issuing agency
Business Insider article — identified as a paid press release via PRWeb, not independent published material
Articles in purported professional publications — no circulation statistics provided for comparative purposes
Foreign tax documents — no comparable Russian market salary data available for comparison
Form 1040-NR for U.S. earnings — not independently verified as accurately filed; no corroboration that all earnings were solely from consulting
Articles comparing petitioner's hourly rate to average U.S. consultant earnings — average earnings do not establish high salary in relation to others in the field
Letters from individuals claiming top consultant earnings in U.S. and Russia — conclusory and uncorroborated by independent evidence
Director's written conclusion under the awards criterion stated the criterion was met despite the entire preceding analysis pointing to the contrary, which the AAO characterized as a likely typographical error.
Director did not adequately explain how recommendation letters conflicted with other record evidence or why they were found questionable under the original contributions criterion.
Completed
I-140 filed
Business consultant specializing in human resources and personnel management, primarily in Russian-speaking and post-Soviet countries
Completed
Texas Service Center Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-02-08
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for EB-1A classification. Specifically, the AAO found the petitioner did not meet the criteria for lesser awards, published material, or high salary.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee