This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed on two independent grounds: (1) the Form I-140 bore a word-processor-generated signature rather than a valid handwritten or authorized electronic signature, rendering the petition improperly filed; and (2) the petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfaction of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria, meeting only two (judging and scholarly articles) rather than the required minimum of three.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
A clinical psychologist and researcher in New York sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal on two independent grounds. First, the Form I-140 was signed using a word processor rather than a valid handwritten or electronically authorized signature, rendering the petition improperly filed under USCIS policy. Second, on the merits, the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three criteria (judging and scholarly articles); his high-salary claim failed because his $166,161 income fell below the 90th-percentile OEWS benchmark of $168,790, and the supplementary salary surveys from Indeed and ZipRecruiter were either based on too small a sample or showed higher figures than his own earnings. Because the minimum evidentiary threshold was not cleared, no final merits determination was conducted.
What failed: 1. The Form I-140 signature was generated by a word processor rather than being personally handwritten, which alone was sufficient to dismiss the petition. 2. Salary evidence failed because the petitioner's income fell below the BLS 90th-percentile figure, the Indeed survey had only 77 reported salaries, and ZipRecruiter showed higher 'top earner' figures than the petitioner's salary — none of the sources provided a sufficiently tailored geographic or role-specific comparison. 3. The petitioner could only demonstrate two qualifying criteria (judging and scholarly articles), one short of the required three.
Takeaway: Ensure the Form I-140 bears a valid handwritten or properly authorized electronic signature before filing, as a deficient signature alone will doom the petition. When claiming the high-salary criterion, submit position-specific and geographically appropriate compensation surveys with robust sample sizes rather than relying on general national statistics or crowdsourced salary websites with small respondent pools.
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 Form I-140 signature was generated by a word processor rather than being personally handwritten, which alone was sufficient to dismiss the petition
- Salary evidence failed because the petitioner's income fell below the BLS 90th-percentile figure, the Indeed survey had only 77 reported salaries, and ZipRecruiter showed higher 'top earner' figures than the petitioner's salary — none of the sources provided a sufficiently tailored geographic or role-specific comparison
- The petitioner could only demonstrate two qualifying criteria (judging and scholarly articles), one short of the required three.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO did not disturb that finding.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO did not disturb that finding.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metPetitioner's 2022 income of $166,161 fell below the OEWS 90th-percentile figure of $168,790; Indeed data had only 77 reported salaries (insufficient sample); ZipRecruiter showed top earners of $158,054 with salaries as high as $181,115, exceeding petitioner's salary; none of the sources provided geographically or position-appropriate comparisons for a clinical psychologist/researcher in New York.
Evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the field (criterion iv) — accepted by the Director and undisturbed on appeal
Authorship of scholarly articles (criterion vi) — accepted by the Director and undisturbed on appeal
2022 Form W-2 showing income of $166,161 — fell below the OEWS 90th-percentile benchmark of $168,790
BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data — nationwide, all-settings survey not sufficiently tailored to petitioner's geographic location or research role
Indeed salary data — only 77 reported salaries, sample size deemed too small to be reliable
ZipRecruiter salary data — showed top earners of $158,054 and salaries as high as $181,115 (higher than petitioner); scope and settings not adequately defined
Form I-140 signature — created by word processor; deemed a deficient signature under USCIS policy, rendering the petition improperly filed
Completed
I-140 filed
Clinical psychologist and researcher based in New York
Completed
Nebraska Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-02-20
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed on two independent grounds: (1) the Form I-140 bore a word-processor-generated signature rather than a valid handwritten or authorized electronic signature, rendering the petition improperly filed; and (2) the petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfaction of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria, meeting only two (judging and scholarly articles) rather than the required minimum of three.
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