Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial after finding the petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion (high salary), satisfying the initial evidence threshold. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The Nebraska Service Center denied this EB-1A petition because the petitioner, a director of product development at a technology company, only met two of the required three evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO found the Director had incorrectly rejected the high salary criterion, faulting comparative wage data for relying on averages and for a job title mismatch. The AAO reversed, finding the employer's description of job duties sufficiently matched the wage data occupational categories and that the data as a whole supported a high salary finding. With three criteria now established, the petition cleared the Kazarian step-one threshold. However, because the Director never conducted a final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO remanded rather than approve the petition outright.
What worked: Employer letter combined with Department of Labor wage data covering salary ranges (not just averages) for the same geographic area persuaded the AAO that the high salary criterion was met, even though the petitioner's job title did not exactly match the wage survey categories. Scholarly articles and a leading/critical role at a distinguished organization were undisputed.
What failed: The Director's narrow interpretation of the high salary criterion — requiring an exact job title match and dismissing data that included median figures — was rejected. No evidence was found sufficient to resolve the final merits question without remand.
Takeaway: When submitting high salary evidence, use wage data that shows salary ranges (including high-end figures) from authoritative sources, and pair it with a detailed employer letter explaining job duties so the AAO can match duties to occupational categories even if official job titles differ.
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
- Employer letter combined with Department of Labor wage data covering salary ranges (not just averages) for the same geographic area persuaded the AAO that the high salary criterion was met, even though the petitioner's job title did not exactly match the wage survey categories
- Scholarly articles and a leading/critical role at a distinguished organization were undisputed.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Director's narrow interpretation of the high salary criterion — requiring an exact job title match and dismissing data that included median figures — was rejected
- No evidence was found sufficient to resolve the final merits question without remand.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Original contributions of major significance
Not metPetitioner claimed original contributions of major significance on appeal; AAO declined to address it as a third criterion was already established.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO did not disturb that finding.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO did not disturb that finding.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Reversed in their favorDirector denied this criterion, finding comparative wage data used averages/medians and lacked comparable position match. AAO reversed, finding the employer's job duty description sufficiently matched the wage data occupational categories and that the data supported the high salary claim.
Letter from current employer documenting job duties, salary, and other guaranteed compensation
U.S. Department of Labor wage data and other credible sources providing salary ranges for similarly employed persons in the same geographic area
Employer's description of job duties, which the AAO found sufficiently matched the occupational categories in the wage data
Director incorrectly rejected the high salary criterion by faulting the comparative wage data for using averages/medians without considering that the data also provided salary ranges sufficient to demonstrate high compensation.
Director improperly found the wage data inapplicable because the petitioner's job title did not exactly match the occupational titles in the data, without accounting for the substantive similarity of job duties described by the employer.
Completed
I-140 filed
Director of product development and management at a technology company
Completed
Nebraska Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-03-29
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial after finding the petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion (high salary), satisfying the initial evidence threshold. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on 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