Missing Comparative Salary Evidence: High‑Salary Criterion Pitfalls for EB‑1A

The AAO dismissal in decision APR102025_03B2203 illustrates a recurring failure mode on the EB‑1A high‑salary criterion. The petitioner submitted only general earnings claims without any comparative salary data to establish that their compensation was significantly higher than others performing similar work.

What Was Found Missing

The AAO identified concrete evidence as absent for the high‑salary criterion:

• Comparative salary documentation: No data showing how the petitioner's earnings exceeded industry standards, peers in comparable roles, or market rates.

• Specificity of earnings claims: Vague statements about "high" or "competitive" compensation were insufficient; the AAO requires actual figures and comparative context.

• Contextual explanation: The petitioner failed to explain why their salary was high — whether due to unique skills, specialized expertise, rare qualifications, or other distinguishing factors.

Why This Matters: Practical Implications

When submitting evidence for the high‑salary criterion, you must demonstrate that your compensation is significantly higher than what others in your field typically earn. The AAO consistently rejects claims based on general statements like "I have a high salary" without:

• Specific dollar amounts

• Comparative data (e.g., industry reports, peer salary surveys)

• Documentation of unique qualifications justifying the premium

This reflects an evidentiary standard that is not about how much you make, but rather whether your earnings are demonstrably elevated relative to peers.

Source Note

Non-precedent AAO decisions are used as evidence examples. They are not binding authority and do not predict any individual case.