Regulatory language: "Evidence satisfying criterion ix under the EB-1A regulatory framework." — 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(ix)
Remanded · 2023 Director 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.
Remanded · 2024 Director 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.
Dismissed · 2019 AAO reversed the Director's finding; salary of approximately $252,000 plus bonus, supported by BLS data showing top 10% of civil engineers earned $132,880, and Australian engineering salary comparisons, established a significantly high salary relative to others in the field.
Sustained · 2025 SCOPS denied this criterion because it inappropriately confined analysis to petitioner's specific internal job title; AAO reversed, finding BLS and DOL data showed petitioner's earnings met or exceeded highest salary ranges nationally and locally for comparable positions.
Dismissed · 2024 Petitioner's 2022 income of $166,161 fell below the OEWS 90th-percentile figure of $168,790; Indeed data had only 77 reported salaries (insufficient sample); ZipRecruiter showed top earners of $158,054 with salaries as high as $181,115, exceeding petitioner's salary; none of the sources provided geographically or position-appropriate comparisons for a clinical psychologist/researcher in New York.
Dismissed · 2023 Petitioner's foreign earnings lacked comparable Russian market data. U.S. earnings were compared only to average consultant earnings rather than top earners. USCIS policy prohibits converting foreign earnings to USD for comparison. Corroborating evidence for U.S. hourly rate claims was absent. Letters claiming top consultant earnings were conclusory and uncorroborated.
Dismissed · 2015 Director had granted this criterion, but AAO reversed, finding the salary evidence (W-2s, pay stubs, offer letters, average/median/prevailing wage comparisons) did not demonstrate high remuneration relative to others in the field. Post-filing earnings were excluded. Comparison data used average, median, or prevailing wages rather than top-earner benchmarks.
Dismissed · 2020 AAO had previously reversed the Director's grant of this criterion. Beneficiary's $108,000 salary was above average but not established as 'high' because the expert's comparison used only national median data without local wage adjustments; FLCDC prevailing wage data for Level 4 employees was $92,955, indicating above-average but not high compensation.
Director had granted this criterion, but AAO reversed, finding the salary evidence (W-2s, pay stubs, offer letters, average/median/prevailing wage comparisons) did not demonstrate high remuneration relative to others in the field. Post-filing earnings were excluded. Comparison data used average, median, or prevailing wages rather than top-earner benchmarks.
SCOPS denied because bonuses/profit sharing were not shown to be earned 'in the field'; AAO reversed that reasoning but found a different deficiency: salary guides may reflect salary only while petitioner's total compensation includes bonuses and profit sharing, making the comparison an apples-to-oranges issue. Remanded for Petitioner to respond.
Director 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.
SCOPS 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.
The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a fund manager back to the Director after finding multiple legal errors in the
The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a senior staff software engineer back to SCOPS because SCOPS reversed two previ
The AAO dismissed this EB-1A appeal for a media executive who met three evidentiary criteria, finding that her evidence
A petroleum reservoir management team lead's EB-1A appeal was dismissed after the AAO found that, despite meeting three
An EB-1A petition for a visual designer was dismissed after the AAO found that the beneficiary failed to show she person
An experienced strategic port planner's motions to reopen and reconsider his EB-1A denial were both dismissed because he
An architecture firm's petition for its senior electrical engineer was dismissed after the AAO found that, despite meeti
A business executive seeking an EB-1A extraordinary ability green card had his appeal dismissed because, despite meeting
See all 762 criterion ix cases →