This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed because the AAO found the signatures on the Form I-290B and G-28 were not valid original handwritten signatures, and additionally the Petitioner failed to satisfy the minimum three evidentiary criteria required, having met only one (leading or critical role).
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A chief financial officer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The Texas Service Center director denied the petition, finding only one criterion met (leading or critical role). On appeal, the AAO found an additional procedural defect: the signatures on the appeal form and attorney appearance form appeared to be electronically applied computer-generated images rather than original handwritten signatures, rendering the appeal improperly filed. On the merits, the AAO agreed with the director that the membership associations did not demonstrably require outstanding achievement, the published materials were not sufficiently about the petitioner, and the salary comparison used economist benchmarks that did not match her CFO duties. Having met only one of the required three criteria, the petition could not advance to a final merits determination.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established the leading or critical role criterion based on employer letters describing her oversight of a government entity's full financial operations and a $1.2 billion capital project bond portfolio.
What failed: 1. Membership criterion failed because the associations either did not require outstanding achievement or the petitioner's specific membership tier did not require it. 2. Published material criterion failed because the articles and publications were about the petitioner's reports, not about the petitioner herself — brief mentions and co-author citations are insufficient. 3. High salary criterion failed because the petitioner compared her CFO compensation to economist salary surveys, which describe a materially different occupation. 4. The appeal itself was also procedurally deficient due to signatures that appeared computer-generated rather than original handwritten.
Takeaway: Petitioners must ensure all appeal and representation forms bear genuine original handwritten signatures — electronically applied signatures will invalidate the filing entirely. When claiming high salary, salary comparison data must match the petitioner's actual job duties precisely; using a different occupation's benchmarks (even a related one) will not satisfy the criterion.
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 petitioner successfully established the leading or critical role criterion based on employer letters describing her oversight of a government entity's full financial operations and a $1.2 billion capital project bond portfolio.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Membership criterion failed because the associations either did not require outstanding achievement or the petitioner's specific membership tier did not require it
- Published material criterion failed because the articles and publications were about the petitioner's reports, not about the petitioner herself — brief mentions and co-author citations are insufficient
- High salary criterion failed because the petitioner compared her CFO compensation to economist salary surveys, which describe a materially different occupation
- The appeal itself was also procedurally deficient due to signatures that appeared computer-generated rather than original handwritten.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metPetitioner claimed membership in CFA Institute, INAP, ASPPA, ICMA, FEI, FPA, and College of Metropolitan Economists. Evidence did not show the associations required outstanding achievements of members, or that her membership level required such achievement (e.g., FPA Allied Professional only requires working in the field and paying dues; ICMA membership level could not be determined).
Published material about the person
Not metFour items submitted: a report co-authored by Petitioner (she was author, not subject); a book with a single citation to her report; a Dallas Morning News article that never names her; and a Houston Chronicle article that names her in one sentence as co-author. None were sufficiently about the Petitioner.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetBoth the Director and the AAO agreed the Petitioner established a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metPetitioner compared her CFO salary to economist salary data, but the occupational descriptions are materially different. The Director and AAO agreed the comparison was inapt and insufficient.
Letters from employer confirming Petitioner's role as Chief Financial Officer overseeing financial operations, teams, and $1.2 billion in capital project bonds — sufficient to establish leading or critical role criterion
Membership documentation for ASPPA, ICMA, FEI, FPA, and other associations — failed to show outstanding achievement requirement for membership
Co-authored government retirement system report — Petitioner was author, not subject, so not 'published material about' her
Book citation — single citation to Petitioner's report does not make the book about her
Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News articles — only brief mentions of Petitioner as co-author; articles were about the reports, not about her
Economist salary comparison data — Petitioner's CFO duties were materially different from economist duties described in the survey
Signatures on Form I-290B and G-28 — found to be computer-generated/electronically applied rather than original handwritten signatures, invalidating the appeal filing
Completed
I-140 filed
Chief Financial Officer overseeing financial operations, budget management, and capital project bonds for a government entity
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-03-07
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed because the AAO found the signatures on the Form I-290B and G-28 were not valid original handwritten signatures, and additionally the Petitioner failed to satisfy the minimum three evidentiary criteria required, having met only one (leading or critical role).
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