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.
A nuclear medicine physician filed an EB-1A extraordinary ability petition claiming five of ten evidentiary criteria. The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, finding only two criteria met (scholarly articles and leading role). On appeal, the AAO reversed the Director's denial of the high salary criterion, finding the Director erred by disregarding the petitioner's $300,000 employment agreement and instead focusing on a later W-2, and by requiring salary comparisons for a 'department director' position rather than for a nuclear medicine physician. With three criteria now satisfied, the petitioner cleared the initial evidence threshold. However, because the Director never reached the final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO remanded the case rather than approving it, leaving the ultimate outcome to be decided on remand.
What worked: The petitioner's fully-executed employment agreement showing a $300,000 annual salary, combined with comparative wage data for nuclear medicine physicians, was sufficient to demonstrate the high salary criterion. Evidence of scholarly articles and leading/critical roles at distinguished organizations also held up and were undisputed.
What failed: Evidence for published material about the petitioner (criterion iii) and original contributions of major significance (criterion v) was found insufficient. The judging criterion (iv) was effectively abandoned on appeal. The case was not fully approved because a final merits determination on sustained acclaim remains outstanding.
Takeaway: When claiming the high salary criterion, use a signed employment contract as your primary evidence of salary 'commanded' and ensure comparative wage data matches the specific occupation being pursued in the United States—not an incidental administrative title the petitioner may have later acquired. Clearing the three-criterion threshold is only step one; petitioners must also build a strong record for the final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.
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's fully-executed employment agreement showing a $300,000 annual salary, combined with comparative wage data for nuclear medicine physicians, was sufficient to demonstrate the high salary criterion
- Evidence of scholarly articles and leading/critical roles at distinguished organizations also held up and were undisputed.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Evidence for published material about the petitioner (criterion iii) and original contributions of major significance (criterion v) was found insufficient
- The judging criterion (iv) was effectively abandoned on appeal
- The case was not fully approved because a final merits determination on sustained acclaim remains outstanding.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Published material about the person
Not metDirector found insufficient evidence of published material about the petitioner in professional publications or major media; AAO did not reverse this finding.
Judging the work of others
Not metPetitioner initially claimed this criterion but did not pursue it on appeal; treated as abandoned.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metDirector found insufficient evidence of original contributions of major significance; AAO did not reverse this finding.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetBoth Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner satisfied this criterion through authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetBoth Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner satisfied this criterion through performance in leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Reversed in their favorDirector denied this criterion for lack of position-appropriate comparative wage data for 'department director.' AAO reversed, finding the employment agreement as a nuclear medicine physician was the proper basis for comparison and that the petitioner's $300,000 salary commanded a high salary relative to others in the field.
Fully-executed employment agreement showing annual salary of $300,000 with guaranteed increases to $320,000 by year three, beginning March 2021
Employer letter confirming commencement of employment in March 2021
Comparative wage data for nuclear medicine physicians demonstrating the petitioner's salary was high relative to others in the field
Authorship of scholarly articles (criterion vi)
Evidence of leading or critical roles at organizations with distinguished reputations (criterion viii)
Evidence submitted for published material criterion (iii) found insufficient
Evidence submitted for original contributions of major significance (v) found insufficient
IRS Form W-2 for 2022 alone was insufficient to satisfy the high salary criterion as used by the Director
Director disregarded the employment agreement and relied solely on the petitioner's 2022 W-2 wage data when evaluating the high salary criterion.
Director required position-appropriate comparative data for 'department director' rather than for 'nuclear medicine physician,' which is the occupation the petitioner intends to pursue in the United States.
Director failed to recognize that a credible employment contract showing prospective salary is sufficient to establish that a petitioner 'has commanded' high remuneration under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Completed
I-140 filed
Nuclear medicine physician and department director
Completed
Texas Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-09-29
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