This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging and scholarly articles), failing to establish the high salary criterion and the leading/critical role criterion. Even in a brief merits discussion, the AAO found the record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a former financial journalist who transitioned to corporate brand management, sought EB-1A classification based on four claimed criteria. The AAO agreed with the Director that the judging criterion was met, reversed the Director to also grant the scholarly articles criterion for a co-authored textbook, but reversed the Director's favorable high-salary finding because the comparison data was not position-appropriate for a deputy general manager role. The leading/critical role criterion also failed due to insufficient probative evidence from employers. Falling short of the three-criteria threshold, no final merits determination was required, though the AAO noted in a brief discussion that the record—centered on one acclaimed investigative report and one book from 2006—did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The appeal was dismissed on independent alternate grounds.
What worked: The co-authored 2006 financial journalism textbook succeeded in satisfying the scholarly articles criterion because it was cited in academic literature, used as a university textbook, and directed at learned professionals rather than the general public. Prior recognition for a well-known investigative report and a judging role at Southern Weekend magazine supported the judging criterion.
What failed: The salary comparison failed because the petitioner used data for lower-level positions (senior brand manager) and an average across all PR firm employees rather than deputy general manager-level comparators; cross-country salary conversion to USD was also rejected. The leading/critical role claims failed at both employers because reference letters lacked personal knowledge of the petitioner's work, an undated third-party employee list could not establish internal management structure, and the media employer's certificate was a two-sentence document not attributed to any individual. Overall, the body of acclaim evidence was aged (primarily 2006) and insufficient to show sustained national or international recognition.
Takeaway: When claiming high salary, petitioners must provide compensation surveys or data that match their actual seniority level and geography—comparing to lower-level roles or using cross-country salary conversions will not satisfy the criterion. For leading/critical role claims, detailed letters from senior company insiders with direct personal knowledge of the petitioner's specific contributions are essential; generic praise or letters from unaffiliated third parties will be disregarded.
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
- The co-authored 2006 financial journalism textbook succeeded in satisfying the scholarly articles criterion because it was cited in academic literature, used as a university textbook, and directed at learned professionals rather than the general public
- Prior recognition for a well-known investigative report and a judging role at Southern Weekend magazine supported the judging criterion.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The salary comparison failed because the petitioner used data for lower-level positions (senior brand manager) and an average across all PR firm employees rather than deputy general manager-level comparators
- cross-country salary conversion to USD was also rejected
- The leading/critical role claims failed at both employers because reference letters lacked personal knowledge of the petitioner's work, an undated third-party employee list could not establish internal management structure, and the media employer's certificate was a two-sentence document not attributed to any individual
- Overall, the body of acclaim evidence was aged (primarily 2006) and insufficient to show sustained national or international recognition.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
MetAAO agreed with Director that participation as a judge for a Southern Weekend magazine special issue recognizing best Chinese journalism satisfied this criterion.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed Director's denial; found petitioner's co-authored financial journalism book qualifies as a scholarly/professional publication intended for learned persons in the field, regularly cited in academic articles and used as a university textbook.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metPetitioner claimed leading/critical roles at two employers. Evidence was insufficient: reference letters lacked personal knowledge and probative detail; undated third-party employee list inadequate to show management structure; employment certificate from media employer was only two sentences and not attributed to an individual.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed Director's favorable finding. Comparison data used (CIPRA survey average and FMCG senior brand manager salary) was not position-appropriate for petitioner's deputy general manager role; converting Chinese salary to USD using U.S. wage data was also improper methodology.
Co-authored financial journalism textbook (2006), cited at least 30 times in scholarly articles and adopted as recommended reading in national journalism colleges, satisfying scholarly articles criterion.
Participation as a judge on the Southern Weekend judging panel for best Chinese journalism of the decade, satisfying the judging criterion.
April 2019 pay statement documenting basic annual salary of 900,000 RMB as deputy general manager.
CIPRA 2017 Annual Survey average salary figure, because it reflected average pay across all employees in top PR companies without position-specific breakdown.
Conversion of Chinese salary to USD compared against U.S. Department of Labor 'Public Relations Specialist' data, because cross-country salary conversions are not an appropriate basis for comparison.
Robert Walters 2019 Salary Survey for 'Senior Brand Manager' in FMCG industry, because petitioner held a higher-level deputy general manager role making the comparison inapt.
Reference letter from employer's Chief Marketing Officer at a U.S. company regarding leading/critical role, because the letter writer had no affiliation with or personal knowledge of petitioner's work at the Chinese employer.
Undated, partial employee list from third-party website (Sum View) to establish management structure, because it was not derived from the company itself.
Two-sentence employment certificate from media employer (not attributed to an individual) as evidence of leading or critical role.
Reference letter from Financial Times contact describing petitioner as 'Executive Editor,' because the letter writer had no affiliation with or personal knowledge of petitioner's role at the media company.
Bank statement deposit highlights as evidence of salary, because deposits did not identify their source.
Employment offer letters alone as evidence of actual prior earnings.
Director improperly denied the scholarly articles criterion by finding the book was 'published for the general public' without adequate evidentiary basis; the record showed the book was directed at learned persons in the field.
Director improperly conducted a final-merits-style assessment (criticizing submission of only one publication) at the threshold counting step for the scholarly articles criterion, contrary to Kazarian two-step framework.
Director improperly granted the high salary criterion using comparison data that was not position-appropriate (average salary across all PR company employees, and FMCG senior brand manager range) rather than comparing to similarly situated deputy general manager-level employees.
Completed
I-140 filed
Deputy general manager of a brand management center and former financial journalist/editorial board member
Completed
Nebraska Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-07-02
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging and scholarly articles), failing to establish the high salary criterion and the leading/critical role criterion. Even in a brief merits discussion, the AAO found the record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
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