This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner met only two of the ten evidentiary criteria (judging and leading role), falling short of the required three. The record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim consistent with extraordinary ability.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a former Finance Director at a large multinational corporation who transitioned to minority business coaching, sought EB-1A classification but satisfied only two of the ten required criteria — judging and leading role. The AAO agreed with the Director that her employer awards lacked national or international recognition in the field, the organizations she belonged to did not require outstanding achievements for membership, and the published materials submitted were about employers or events rather than about her. Her salary, while above the average for directors in her country, was not demonstrated to be 'significantly high' relative to others at the top of her field. Because the petitioner failed to meet the initial three-criterion threshold, the AAO did not conduct a final merits determination and dismissed the appeal.
What worked: Petitioner successfully established the judging criterion through performance reviews she completed for subordinate managers. She also established the leading role criterion through her Finance Director position at a well-known multinational corporation with a distinguished reputation.
What failed: Awards from her employer were internal and not publicly recognized in the finance field. Published materials were about her employer or broader events, not specifically about her or her work. Salary evidence, while showing above-average compensation, lacked the full range of comparative data needed to prove it was 'significantly high.' Membership in professional associations did not show those groups required outstanding achievements for admission.
Takeaway: For EB-1A petitions, employer-internal awards and company achievements must be clearly linked to recognition within the broader professional field — not just within the organization. Salary comparisons require peer-level data from the same country and time period, including a full distribution range, not just an average.
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
- Petitioner successfully established the judging criterion through performance reviews she completed for subordinate managers
- She also established the leading role criterion through her Finance Director position at a well-known multinational corporation with a distinguished reputation.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Awards from her employer were internal and not publicly recognized in the finance field
- Published materials were about her employer or broader events, not specifically about her or her work
- Salary evidence, while showing above-average compensation, lacked the full range of comparative data needed to prove it was 'significantly high.' Membership in professional associations did not show those groups required outstanding achievements for admission.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metRSU awards from multinational employer lacked national/international recognition in the field; service pins and certificate not awards for excellence; university GPA award not recognized at national/international level.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metNone of the three associations (Controllers Group, Economists Association, Chamber of Commerce committee) were shown to require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles were about employer events or graduation ceremonies, not about the petitioner; no circulation figures provided; radio interview lacked evidence of qualifying medium; billboards/posters did not identify or discuss her work.
Judging the work of others
MetPerformance reviews she completed for subordinate managers while serving as Finance Director satisfied this criterion; AAO agreed with Director.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metContributions (SOX compliance, ERP implementations, dividend approval) demonstrated importance to employer but not major significance to the broader field of finance or business coaching.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetPetitioner held Finance Director role at a large multinational with distinguished reputation and played critical role in financial controls and strategic advisory; AAO agreed with Director.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metTotal compensation was approximately 138% of average for directors in large companies but not shown to be 'significantly high'; comparison data incomplete and several salary surveys were not relevant to her country or time period.
Performance reviews completed for subordinate managers, satisfying the judging criterion
Employment history showing Finance Director role at a large multinational corporation with distinguished reputation, satisfying the leading role criterion
RSU/Exceptional Contributor awards from employer — no public recognition or awareness in the field
Service pins and certificate of integrity — not awards for excellence in the field
University highest GPA award — academic achievement, not national/international recognition in finance or business coaching
Membership in Controllers Group — informal gathering, no official membership documentation, no outstanding achievement requirement shown
Membership in Economists Association — bylaws require only active economist status, not outstanding achievements
Chamber of Commerce Corporate Finance committee membership — reaching a corporate hierarchy position not shown to be an outstanding achievement
Newspaper and corporate newsletter articles — not about the petitioner, or about broader events in which she participated
Radio interview — no evidence of qualifying medium
Billboard/poster photographs — petitioner not identified, no accompanying text about her work
Webinar presentation — published by petitioner, not about petitioner
Salary surveys from glassdoor, payscale, BLS — U.S.-based data, not relevant to petitioner's country and time period
Mercer salary slide presentation — petitioner's country not included in survey data
$8.5MM dividend payment contribution — no evidence of impact on the broader finance field beyond the employer
SOX compliance and ERP implementation leadership — significant to employer but not shown to impact the broader field
Director incorrectly referred to petitioner's 'scientific' contributions rather than 'business' contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), conflating business with science; error was noted by AAO but found non-material.
Completed
I-140 filed
Finance executive and small business consultant specializing in minority-owned businesses
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-11-24
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner met only two of the ten evidentiary criteria (judging and leading role), falling short of the required three. The record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim consistent with extraordinary ability.
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