This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO reversed SCOPS' favorable finding on the high salary criterion, leaving the petitioner with fewer than three criteria satisfied.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A financial analyst from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS had denied the petition but found two of the ten criteria met, including the high salary criterion. On appeal, the AAO reversed the high salary finding because the supporting salary survey explicitly stated it did not collect data for the petitioner's actual occupation, and the substitute occupational group used lacked documented duty comparisons. Furthermore, the evidence provided only average salary statistics, which courts and the AAO have consistently held insufficient to establish a 'high salary' relative to peers. With fewer than three criteria now satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination, noting the record did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
What failed: 1. The salary comparison relied on a different occupational group (department heads in financial services) rather than the petitioner's actual financial analyst role, and the survey itself acknowledged it lacked data for the petitioner's occupation. 2. Only average salary data was submitted; courts and the AAO require more comprehensive wage data showing the petitioner's earnings are high relative to top performers in the same role, not merely above average.
Takeaway: When claiming the high salary criterion, petitioners must provide salary data specifically for their own occupation at the top tier of their field — not a substitute category — and must show their earnings are high (not merely above average) compared to peers performing similar work. Using average or median salary statistics, or data from a related but distinct job category, will not satisfy this 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
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The salary comparison relied on a different occupational group (department heads in financial services) rather than the petitioner's actual financial analyst role, and the survey itself acknowledged it lacked data for the petitioner's occupation
- Only average salary data was submitted
- courts and the AAO require more comprehensive wage data showing the petitioner's earnings are high relative to top performers in the same role, not merely above average.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Reversed in their favorSCOPS had found this criterion met, but AAO reversed. The salary survey did not cover petitioner's actual occupation; data was provided for a different (though allegedly similar) occupational group. Additionally, only average salary data was presented, which is insufficient to establish a 'high salary' relative to peers.
Letter from head of department of labor statistics providing average salary data for 'Heads of services and departments in the field of financial activity and insurance' — rejected because it did not cover petitioner's actual occupation and provided only average (not top-tier comparative) salary data.
2021 salary survey statistics — rejected because the survey explicitly stated it did not collect data for petitioner's occupation and relied on a substitute occupational category without documented duty comparisons.
SCOPS incorrectly found the high salary criterion met based on salary data for a different occupational group ('Heads of services and departments in the field of financial activity and insurance') rather than for the petitioner's actual position as a financial analyst.
SCOPS accepted average salary statistics as sufficient for the high salary criterion, which is legally insufficient under applicable case law.
Completed
I-140 filed
Financial analyst working in private banking and customer relations
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-05-19
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO reversed SCOPS' favorable finding on the high salary criterion, leaving the petitioner with fewer than three criteria satisfied.
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