All EB-1A criteria
Awards - Membership - Press - Scholarly articles - Judging - Original contribution - High salary - Critical role - Final Merits
O-1 Petitioner - EB-2 NIW guide - Success stories - Document translation - Filing fees
We analyze the high-salary criterion for O-1 and EB-1A: how much you need to earn, what documents to submit, where to get comparison data, and common mistakes.
What the high-salary criterion is
This analysis is about the high-salary criterion. The full list of criteria is here.
One of 10 criteria for O-1 and EB-1A visas. The essence: your income is substantially higher than that of most professionals in your field. Not just “a good salary,” but proof that the market values you as an exceptional professional.
USCIS (the U.S. immigration service) does not look at an absolute amount, but at your position relative to other professionals. A $150k salary may be high for a teacher and average for a software engineer in California.
Official USCIS requirements
Below is the full text from the USCIS Policy Manual (Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2) on the high-salary criterion. This is the exact text an officer uses when evaluating your petition.
USCIS Policy Manual - full text of the criterion (eng. + rus.)
Criterion 9: The person has commanded a high salary, or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field.
USCIS determines whether the person’s salary or remuneration is high relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. USCIS does not interpret the phrase “has commanded” to mean that the person must have already earned such salary or remuneration in order to meet the criterion. Rather, a credible contract or job offer showing prospective salary or remuneration may establish that the person has been able to command such compensation.
Evidence relevant to demonstrating high remuneration may include, but is not limited to:
- Tax returns, pay statements, or other evidence of past salary or remuneration for services;
- Contract, job offer letter, or other evidence of prospective salary or remuneration for services; and
- Comparative wage or remuneration data for the person’s field, such as geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys.
Considerations:
Evidence regarding whether the person’s compensation is high relative to that of others working in the field may take many forms. Examples may include, but are not limited to, geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys and organizational justifications to pay above the compensation data. The following websites, among others, may be helpful in evaluating the relative compensation for a given field:
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Overview of BLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation webpage; and
- The Department of Labor’s Career One Stop website.
When evaluating whether a comparison between the beneficiary’s documented remuneration and the remuneration in the survey is accurate, the following considerations, among others, may be relevant:
- The description of the occupation
- The validity of the survey
- Location and currency
- Salary rate being measured
For entrepreneurs or founders of startup businesses, officers consider evidence that the business has received significant funding from government entities, venture capital funds, angel investors, or other such funders.
Source: USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
Translation into English
Criterion 9: The person has received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services compared to other professionals in the field.
USCIS determines whether the person’s salary or remuneration is high compared to compensation paid to others in the field. USCIS does not interpret the phrase “has commanded” to mean the person must already have earned such salary or remuneration to meet the criterion. A credible contract or job offer showing prospective salary or remuneration can establish that the person can command such compensation.
Evidence relevant to demonstrating high remuneration may include, but is not limited to:
- Tax returns, pay statements, or other evidence of past salary or remuneration for services;
- Contract, job offer letter, or other evidence of prospective salary or remuneration for services;
- Comparative wage or remuneration data for the person’s field, e.g., geographic or position-appropriate compensation surveys.
Considerations:
Evidence on whether a person’s compensation is high relative to others in the field may take many forms. Examples include geographic or position-appropriate compensation surveys and organizational justifications for paying above compensation data. The following websites, among others, may be helpful in evaluating relative compensation in a given field:
- Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) webpage with an overview of wage data by area and occupation;
- Career One Stop (U.S. Department of Labor) website.
When evaluating whether the comparison between the beneficiary’s documented remuneration and the survey remuneration is accurate, the following considerations may be relevant, among others:
- Job description
- Survey validity
- Location and currency
- The salary rate being measured
For entrepreneurs or startup founders, officers consider evidence that the business has received significant funding from government entities, venture capital funds, angel investors, or similar funders.
Note: USCIS explicitly states that a future salary (per a contract or job offer) also qualifies. You do not necessarily need to already be receiving a high salary at the time of filing the petition.
Wording in the regulation
In the law this is criterion number 9, 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(ix):
Wording of the high-salary criterion
Exact text from the Code of Federal Regulations that a USCIS officer uses when evaluating a petition.
"Evidence that the beneficiary has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence."
Translation: Evidence that the beneficiary has received or will receive a high salary or other significantly higher remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence.
Precedent Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (1994) establishes: average salary metrics are not suitable for comparison. Data on the upper percentiles are required.
What exactly the officer checks
For the “High Salary” category USCIS requires evidence that your total income exceeds the 90th percentile above the median in your professional field. The criterion requires proof of membership in the “small percentage” at the top of the profession. USCIS expects to see salary distribution data emphasizing upper percentiles (90th, 95th or higher).
A two-step assessment per Kazarian v. USCIS (2010):
- Formal compliance: documents show a high salary relative to others in your field
- Final merits determination: even if the criterion is formally met, the officer assesses whether the totality of evidence truly shows a position at the top of the profession
How to prove it
Step 1: Define the exact occupation
Establish the exact job title
Use O*NET/SOC classification (O*NET/SOC). Check alignment with the occupation stated on the I-140/I-129 petition. Make sure the job title is consistent across all documents.
Step 2: Collect documents of actual salary
Tax documents and income verification
Tax documents are the gold standard proof of income for USCIS. Provide documents for all years in which high salary is claimed.
Which documents are needed:
| Country | Documents |
|---|---|
| USA | W-2 (from employer), 1099 (freelance/contract) for relevant years |
| Russia | 2‑NDFL, personal tax return, employer’s income certificate |
| Other countries | Equivalent tax returns with translations and apostilles |
Additionally: employment contracts specifying compensation, all paystubs for variable income, documents on bonuses, stock options, other compensation forms, and a written explanation of any income variations.
Partial documents are unacceptable. USCIS notes: “the beneficiary’s monthly income varied, and therefore it is not possible to determine the annual income from a few paystubs.” Bank statements without linkage to employment contracts or tax documents are considered insufficient.
Step 3: Research the labor market
Gather comparative data
Your regional salary for your occupation should be multiple times lower than your annual salary—aim for 3x or more as an informal benchmark. Obtain at least three independent sources. Data should be current (no older than 2–3 years).
Important comparison rules:
- compare with professionals in the exact occupation you claim
- present data for the local labor market where you work
- provide evidence for the same time period
- state amounts in local currency and in U.S. dollar equivalent (use the same exchange rate)
For an accurate comparison, use data from the same calendar year. Preferably within three to five years.
How to investigate whether your salary is high
Fill this for yourself:
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Official job title (O*NET/SOC) | $ |
| Current salary | $ |
| Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) | $ |
| O*Net | $ |
| FLC Data Center | $ |
If you work outside the U.S., find suitable local salary databases.
Sources for comparison data
Russian sources:
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| HeadHunter | hh.ru (statistics) |
| SuperJob | superjob.ru |
| GorodRabot.ru | gorodrabot.ru |
| Rosstat | rosstat.gov.ru |
| Zarplatomer | zarplatomer.ru |
| Avito (labor market analytics) | avito.ru |
| HR Solutions | hr-solutions.ru |
International sources:
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | bls.gov |
| CareerOneStop (U.S. Dept. of Labor) | careeronestop.org |
| FLC Data Center | flcdatacenter.com |
| Salary Expert | salaryexpert.com |
| PayScale | payscale.com |
| Glassdoor | glassdoor.com |
| Levels.fyi | levels.fyi |
| Indeed | indeed.com |
| ERI Economic Research Institute | erieri.com |
| ZipRecruiter | ziprecruiter.com |
FLC Data Center — an official U.S. Department of Labor site containing wage and occupation information related to H-1B, H-2A and H-2B visas. Employers can view average wages for workers with various qualifications. The site provides employer data and visa distributions by state and industry.
You can also use: news articles and salary rankings from reputable media, job posting screenshots from major companies or job portals, and industry reports from Deloitte, PwC, McKinsey, Korn Ferry.
In this criterion it may be useful to reference U.S. statistics and show that your income is consistently 3–4 times higher than comparable U.S. professionals.
Step 4: Prepare the comparative analysis
Create a table and calculate the percentile
Create a comparison table of your salary versus upper percentiles. Calculate your exact percentile. Prepare data visualizations. Write an executive summary with key findings.
Step 5: Additional evidence
Media coverage and employer letters
Media publications about high salaries in your profession. Employer letters explaining reasons for high compensation ("organization justifications to pay above the compensation data"). Documents on special achievements that justify the salary. Comparisons with publicly known salaries.
What works and what doesn’t
Good evidence
Tax documents with stamps—gold standard for USCIS. Show consistent high income.
Detailed compensation studies for your exact position and location. Show your placement in the distribution.
Salary rankings from Forbes, Bloomberg, industry publications. Official studies from professional associations.
Explain why your salary exceeds market: unique skills, critical role, direct impact on revenue.
Show earnings hierarchy and where you stand relative to leaders.
Bad evidence
By Matter of Price—averages cannot determine whether you are among the highly paid. Simply exceeding the average may mean you are only in the upper half.
USCIS will not accept this approach. You need currency-equivalent wage charts—not just conversion.
Bank statements without linkage to tax or employment documents. Informal statements. USCIS requires full, consistent documentary proof.
Using software developer tables for a software engineer claim, or PHP developer salaries in Russia while your income was in Georgia. USCIS calls this "distinctly different."
USCIS expressly states: "prevailing wage rate information alone does not generally establish whether the salary is 'significantly' higher than that of others in the field."
Company revenue is not personal salary
A common mistake: applicants confuse company revenue with personal salary. If you own a business, USCIS wants to see your personal compensation (salary, dividends, profit distributions) supported by tax documents. Company revenue or profit alone does not prove high personal salary.
Strategies for different situations
For those working in the U.S.:
- Use BLS data focusing on upper percentiles
- Compare within specific state/metropolitan area
- Show exceeding not just prevailing wage but the 90th percentile
- Use industry compensation studies
- Document all compensation forms (base + bonus + equity)
For those working abroad:
- DO NOT simply convert to USD
- Seek local salary studies in local currency
- Focus on relative position (percentiles)
- Use data from international firms with offices in your country
- Compare with well-known local market leaders
- Engage local HR experts if needed
Universal recommendations:
- Always show multi-year salary growth
- Link high salary with other achievements (publications, awards, industry impact)
- Ensure full consistency of job titles across documents
- Provide redundant evidence—better too much than too little
- If you receive an RFE, answer each point separately
- Use professional help for complex cases
Typical mistakes and RFEs
Ranking of frequent denial reasons
| Mistake | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Using averages instead of upper percentiles | 50% of cases |
| Insufficient documentary proof of income | 50% of cases |
| Currency conversion issues | 33% of cases |
| Occupation mismatch in comparison data | 33% of cases |
| Lack of international market context | 33% of cases |
Mistake 1: Averages instead of upper percentiles
“The petitioner attempts to use average, local or national salary levels that do not allow for an appropriate basis for comparison in determining a high salary 'in relation to others in the field.' See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954”
“The petitioner attempts to use average local or national salary levels that do not provide an appropriate basis for comparison in determining a high salary 'in relation to others in the field.'”
USCIS consistently rejects using average salary metrics. Matter of Price establishes a fundamental principle: averages cannot show whether an applicant is among the highly paid. Using only averages does not demonstrate the exceptional status required for EB-1A.
In another RFE an officer explained why averages are insufficient (this wording appears in 5+ RFEs):
“Average salary statistics do not provide the necessary range needed to show that a salary is high 'in relation to others in the field.' See Strategati, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01200-H-AGS, 2019 WL 2330181, at *7 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) (in which the court agreed that average salary levels do not allow for an appropriate basis for comparison in determining a high salary 'in relation to others in the field'). Comparing one's salary to the median or average salary does not meet this criterion since you are comparing your salary to the average, and not others who command high salaries."
“Average salary statistics do not provide the necessary range to show that a salary is high 'in relation to others in the field'... Comparing one's salary to the median or average does not meet the criterion since you are comparing to the average, not to those who command high salaries.”
The officer emphasizes: “others in the field” refers specifically to top-level professionals, not everyone. If your salary is above the average, that only means you are in the upper half, not necessarily the upper percentiles.
In another RFE the officer made a similar point with a different emphasis:
“When the plain language states 'others in the field' it is referring to only the salaries of those at the top level of the field (since this is where the petitioner claims to stand), not all individuals' salaries throughout the field. The petitioner refers to the average salary data, not just those at the top level of your field. Consequently, the comparison of one's salary to the average salary data of all individuals in one's field is not a proper comparison based upon this criterion's plain language requirements."
“When the plain language states 'others in the field' it refers to only salaries of those at the top level of the field, not all salaries. The petitioner uses average salary data rather than data for top-level earners. Therefore, comparing to the average is not a proper comparison under this criterion.”
Simply put: applying for EB-1A means you claim to be at the top. So you must compare yourself with those at the top, not with everyone.
“An above-average salary does not necessarily equate to a 'high salary' for purposes of satisfying this criterion.”
“An above-average salary does not necessarily equal a 'high salary' for meeting this criterion.”
This short statement appears in multiple RFEs and clearly distinguishes “above-average” from “high.” For USCIS they are different.
What applicants did wrong:
- Used Rosstat or other state agency averages without percentile breakdowns
- Submitted reports with averages only
- Relied on job-site data without percentile information
- Failed to show their position relative to top earners
- Used hh.ru, SuperJob, GorodRabot.ru only with average metrics (no percentiles)
- Submitted ERI data with average salary but no high-end range
Fix: Find data showing 90th, 95th percentiles or higher. Use specialized compensation studies. Provide lists of top earners from professional bodies. Document factors that justify your placement in upper percentiles.
Mistake 2: Inappropriate comparison data
“Wage charts are for an unrelated occupation, namely software developer. The petitioner is filing as a software engineer and the two occupations are distinctly different."
“Wage charts refer to an unrelated occupation, namely software developer. The petitioner files as a software engineer and the two occupations are distinctly different.”
“You provide evidence of the average salary for a PHP developer in Russia, but yet your earnings were in Georgia."
“You provided average salary evidence for a PHP developer in Russia, but your earnings were in Georgia.”
USCIS requires exact matching between the claimed occupation and salary data. Even similar occupations (“software developer” vs “software engineer”) may be treated as different. Geographic mismatch is also critical: you cannot use salary data from one country to support a high salary claim in another.
In another RFE the officer explained the requirement regarding job title (this wording appears in 5+ RFEs):
“The evidence does not directly compare your remuneration to those in your specific position of General & Operations Manager in the specific field of Business, particularly in the 'management and development of digital companies'. To demonstrate that your remuneration is high in relation to your peers in the field you must provide evidence comparing your remuneration to your peers in specific positions in the specific field."
“The evidence does not directly compare your remuneration to those in your specific position of General & Operations Manager in the specific field of Business, particularly in 'management and development of digital companies'. To show your remuneration is high, provide evidence comparing to peers in the same specific position and field.”
Note: the officer does not just ask for comparison with “managers.” He specifies the full job title and field. If I-140 lists “General & Operations Manager in management and development of digital companies,” compare with that exact position—not CEO or Director.
In another RFE the officer rejected fitness-trainer data for a powerlifting coach:
“USCIS does not find that a 'fitness trainer' and a 'power lifting coach' are the same occupation. A fitness trainer is a generalist who works with clients of all fitness levels on overall health goals. A powerlifting coach, on the other hand, is a specialist who works with athletes to improve their performance in the specific competitive lifts."
“USCIS does not find that a 'fitness trainer' and a 'powerlifting coach' are the same occupation... One is a generalist, the other a specialist.”
The officer researched and found distinct definitions. Don’t assume “close” occupations will be accepted as identical.
In an RFE for a civil engineer the officer noted a level mismatch:
“The petitioner's position is in civil engineering management, and the printouts show entry level positions for civil engineers. In addition, the printouts show civil engineers for 2025 which is not the year the petitioner received the claimed salary."
“The petitioner's role is in civil engineering management, but the sources show entry-level civil engineers. Also, the printouts show 2025 data while the petitioner received the claimed salary in a different year.”
Two mismatches here: (1) the data were for entry-level, not management-level; (2) the data year differed from the year of reported income. The comparison year must match your income year.
What applicants did wrong:
- Used data for Software Developer instead of Software Engineer
- Compared PHP Developer in Russia to Web Developer income in Georgia
- Used Chief Engineer data instead of Architectural Manager
- Ignored geographic labor market differences
- Provided Data Scientist data while I-140 listed Staff Software Engineer, Machine Learning
- Provided entry-level data for a management-level position
- Submitted 2025 data for a 2023 salary
Fix: Use data only for the exact matching occupation. Ensure geographic match between workplace and data. Consult O*NET and SOC codes.
Mistake 3: Currency conversion issues
“USCIS will not use currency conversions to establish high salaries. Rather, the petitioner must submit currency equivalent wage charts from the corresponding years of employment."
“USCIS will not use simple currency conversions to establish high salaries. The petitioner must submit currency-equivalent wage charts for the corresponding employment years.”
“Also, you are converting your salary in USD, which has no relevance unless you're receiving payment in the U.S."
“Also, you are converting your salary into USD, which is irrelevant unless you are paid in the U.S.”
USCIS refuses to accept simple currency conversion. “Currency equivalent wage charts” are NOT mere conversion. They are comparative tables showing relative salary levels on the local market in local currency. Purchasing power and wage levels differ across countries.
In one RFE an officer analyzed conversion issues for an applicant working remotely from the U.K. for a U.S. company:
“Monetary conversions cannot be used in determining whether the petitioner has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services. A U.K. salary comparative statistic cannot be applied to a position and salary earned in the U.S. standards. Therefore, this holds little probative value as the analysis and evidence should be left in its original currency."
“Monetary conversions cannot be used to determine whether the petitioner commanded a high salary. U.K. salary statistics cannot be applied to positions and salaries evaluated by U.S. standards. Leave the analysis in the original currency.”
This illustrative case: the applicant received $152K from a U.S. company while living in London. He compared pay to the UK market by converting to pounds. The officer said you must compare in the currency in which the salary was paid and with the market relevant to the employer.
In another RFE an officer rejected evidence because salaries were in foreign currency without explanation:
“The wage reports are not specific to your position or for an experienced professional in the field. In addition, wages appear in currency that is not United States dollars and you have submitted no evidence of current currency conversion charts."
“Wage reports are not specific to your position or experience level. Also, wages appear in a currency other than USD and you submitted no evidence of currency conversion charts.”
The officer requests “currency conversion charts,” not a simple conversion. That means: show how your salary compares to local market wages in local currency. USCIS evaluates relative position, not absolute converted amounts.
Common trap: An applicant may have above-average pay in their country but low pay when converted to USD; that does not mean they are not highly paid locally. USCIS assesses relative standing, not absolute amounts.
Mistake 4: Insufficient documentary proof
“USCIS notes that the petitioner's monthly income varied and therefore it is not possible to determine a yearly income from a few paystubs."
“USCIS notes the beneficiary's monthly income varied, so it is impossible to determine annual income from a few paystubs.”
USCIS requires full and consistent documentary proof for the whole period. Variable income cases are especially problematic—freelancers and entrepreneurs with irregular income must provide comprehensive documentation.
In several RFEs officers pointed out specific document problems:
“You provided Certificates of Income and Tax Amounts of Individuals for 2022 and 2023, and the evidence indicates total revenue for the years 2022 and 2023. However, you did not provide an employment letter that verifies your actual salary and job position for the years 2022 and 2023. USCIS is unable to determine whether the total revenue indicated on the certificates was/is your base salary for those years."
“You provided income certificates for 2022 and 2023 showing total revenue, but did not provide an employment letter verifying your actual salary and job position. USCIS cannot determine if the total revenue was your base salary.”
Key point: a 2‑NDFL or income certificate shows total income, but USCIS wants to know that this income is salary for your professional activity. Without an employer letter or contract, the officer cannot tie the income to the position.
In another RFE the officer required explanation for discrepancies in salary:
“We note discrepancies in the record of the beneficiary's monthly salary at 230,000 rubles and 207,000 rubles as reported in the documents. Discrepancies encountered in the evidence call into question the beneficiary's ability to document the requirements. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence."
“We note discrepancies in reported monthly salary (230,000 RUB vs. 207,000 RUB). Discrepancies cast doubt on the applicant's ability to document requirements. Doubt on any aspect may lead to reevaluation of all remaining evidence.”
If the contract shows one amount and income statements show another, the officer may question the entire petition (see Matter of Ho).
“The taxes show income, but it is unknown what the source of the income was. Also, a letter is not sufficient without supporting documentary evidence. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California."
“Taxes show income but the source is unknown. A letter alone is insufficient without supporting documents.”
The officer must understand the INCOME SOURCE. If tax records show income but it is unclear whether it is salary, rental income, investment income, or sale proceeds, the criterion will not be met. You must link contract + payslips + tax forms.
Mistake 5: No international market context
“Wage reports submitted are based in US dollars. It is noted the vast majority of the petitioner's employment was outside the United States."
“Submitted wage reports are in USD, while most of the petitioner's work was outside the U.S.”
USCIS requires understanding of the local labor market context. Absolute amounts can mislead in cross-country comparisons. Show relative position using percentiles, rankings, or comparisons with known high-paid positions.
Mistake 6: Multiple job titles in the petition
A frequent trap: different job titles across recommendation letters, contracts, and other documents. USCIS flags this.
“It is noted that throughout the record of proceeding, evidence presented indicated a myriad of different job titles and roles for the beneficiary, such as in affiant letters presented. Therefore, the record contains no objective earnings data showing that you have earned a 'high salary' or 'significantly high remuneration' in comparison with those performing similar work during the same time period."
“Evidence shows many different job titles and roles for the beneficiary across documents. Therefore, there is no objective earnings data demonstrating a 'high salary' compared with peers.”
This appears in 5+ RFEs across professions. If some documents call you “software developer,” others “team lead,” and others “CTO,” the officer cannot determine which occupation to compare.
Fix: Ensure the job title in I-140, contract, recommendation letters, and comparison data match. If you had different roles, prepare an explanatory letter on career progression and focus comparison on the current role.
Mistake 7: Evidence dated after petition filing
“You have submitted evidence that was dated after the filing of this I-140 Petition on March 4, 2025, and, therefore, this evidence cannot be considered probative. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971)."
“You submitted evidence dated after the I-140 filing; it cannot be considered probative. Eligibility must be established at filing time.”
Rule from Matter of Katigbak: your salary and comparative data must be current at the filing date. Evidence dated after filing will be refused as non-probative.
Mistake 8: Company revenue instead of personal salary (entrepreneurs)
“The petitioner also submitted financial documentation about his company. The comparison data he provided was to other companies rather than to individuals. The criterion requires evidence that 'the person has commanded a high salary, or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field', rather than evidence of the financial situation of the petitioner's business."
“The petitioner submitted company financials and compared to other companies, not individuals. The criterion demands evidence that the person commanded a high salary compared to other individuals, not the company's financial situation.”
In another RFE the officer detailed this for an LLC owner:
“USCIS notes tax documents were provided without any objective supporting documentation to demonstrate exactly how this claimed income and revenue was generated, nor exactly what of the recorded revenue went to other claimed employees, and what exactly the beneficiary's salary was of this claimed revenue."
“Tax documents were provided without objective support showing how the income was generated, what part went to other employees, and what the beneficiary's salary was.”
If you own a company, the officer will ask for: (1) contracts showing revenue sources; (2) payroll records listing employees; (3) clear separation between company revenue and your personal compensation; (4) employer quarterly filings (Form 941).
For entrepreneurs: Schedule C on Form 1040 shows business income, but USCIS wants to know your personal salary from this income. If you are the CEO of your LLC, show: W-2 issued to yourself, profit distribution documents (K-1), or a corporate resolution stating your compensation.
Mistake 9: Distinguishing “salary” and “remuneration”
“The plain language of this criterion makes a distinction between salary and remuneration. A salary must be high, and a remuneration must be significantly high. Therefore, the Petitioner must submit separate comparable earning data to establish that the salary is high or that the remuneration is significantly high relative to others in the field."
“The law distinguishes salary and remuneration. Salary must be high; remuneration must be significantly high. Submit comparable data accordingly.”
The criterion states “high salary OR other significantly high remuneration.” If you claim salary—show it’s high. If you claim remuneration (salary + bonuses + equity), the threshold is higher: remuneration must be “significantly high.” Comparative data must include bonuses and equity for peers as well.
“USCIS utilizes base salary when evaluating comparison data. Therefore, benefits, dividends, stock options, and bonuses are not considered salary for the purposes of meeting this criterion."
“USCIS uses base salary for comparison. Benefits, dividends, stock options, and bonuses are not considered salary for this criterion.”
Important detail: if you present total compensation ($214K base + bonuses + equity = $350K) but compare it to average base salary ($180K), that is incorrect. Compare base-to-base or total comp-to-total comp.
Mistake 10: Translation and document formatting issues
“Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English."
“Any foreign-language document must be accompanied by a full English translation certified by the translator as complete and accurate, and a statement that the translator is competent to translate.”
In one RFE the officer separately noted issues with digital documents:
“You submitted digital, self-made copies of documentary evidence that were reduced or altered, but such documentation is inadmissible. You must submit ordinary legible photocopies of all original documentary evidence, reflecting their original size. Furthermore, with respect to documents from the Internet, you must submit screenshots of website publications that show the full URL address on each page."
“You submitted digital, self-made copies that were reduced or altered; such documentation is inadmissible. Submit ordinary legible photocopies of originals. For internet documents, submit screenshots showing the full URL on each page.”
Common mistake: applicants cut relevant data from web pages and paste them into own documents. USCIS rejects such “homemade” evidence. Screenshots must show full URL, date, and original page appearance.
Mistake 11: Data from unreliable or user-reported sites
“You provided salary data from glassdoor.com; however, the printouts indicate that the information is based on salaries collected from our users. Thus, the survey does not appear to be valid and will not be considered. Some websites provide user-reported salary data, which may not be a valid comparison if, for example, too few users reported their salaries, or the data is otherwise not credible or reliable."
“You provided Glassdoor data, but it is user-reported. Such surveys may be invalid if too few users reported or the data lacks credibility or reliability.”
This is directly from the USCIS Policy Manual. Glassdoor, PayScale and other user-reported sites may be rejected if the officer deems the sample insufficient. Supplement such sources with government statistics (BLS, Rosstat) or professional studies.
In another RFE the officer noted conflicting sources:
“USCIS notes you have submitted 2023 bls.gov data which demonstrates an annual mean wage of $181,220. In contrast USCIS notes you have submitted a Glassdoor that only reflects a base pay range of '$133K - $176K/yr Base pay.' USCIS notes these inconsistent findings when comparing the two wage documents."
“USCIS notes you submitted BLS data showing mean annual wage $181,220, while Glassdoor shows base pay $133K–$176K. USCIS notes these inconsistencies when comparing the sources.”
If your sources conflict, the officer will notice and may question both. Ensure different sources are consistent or explain discrepancies.
Legal precedents
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (1994) — average or median salary levels are not a suitable basis to determine a “high salary in relation to others in the field.” Even top-league athletes aren’t automatically “extraordinary ability.” The salary must significantly exceed customary levels.
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) — establishes the two-step evaluation process for EB-1A petitions. Even formal satisfaction of a criterion does not guarantee approval; USCIS performs a final merits determination.
Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) — court compared an NHL enforcer’s salary to salaries of other NHL enforcers, not to league averages. Comparison must be with people in the same role.
Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 — compared NHL defenseman salary with other NHL defensemen; reinforces position-specific comparisons.
Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App’x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) — salary info for those performing lesser duties is not a valid comparison to top-level professionals. Often cited with Matter of Price.
Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, No. 3:18-CV-01200-H-AGS, 2019 WL 2330181 (S.D. Cal. 2019) — court agreed that average salary levels do not provide an appropriate basis for determining a high salary.
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) — “Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner’s proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence.” Discrepancies can undermine the whole petition.
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (BIA 1972) — a bare statement without substantive evidence is insufficient. An employer letter without corroborating documents is inadequate.
Several RFEs directly cite these precedents:
“The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has earned a ‘high salary’ or ‘significantly high remuneration’ in comparison with those performing similar work during the same time period. See Matter of Price; see also Grimson v. INS; Muni v. INS.”
Translation: The petitioner must present objective earnings data showing a ‘high salary’ or ‘significantly high remuneration’ relative to peers performing the same work in the same time period.
Detailed example: Software Engineer with three employers
One detailed RFE analyzed three positions and rejected all three:
Company A, Belarus: $4,970/month. Comparative data for software engineers in Minsk: median $2,983, 75th percentile $4,200, 90th $5,300. Applicant’s salary was between 75th and 90th percentiles. Although above average, it is not at the very top. “Simply exceeding the median wage is not sufficient.”
Company B, Poland: Contract states PLN 204,000 (17,000/month). But: (1) contract does not state the applicant’s job title; (2) comparison data only shows averages for junior/average/senior developers—unclear which level applies; (3) data do not demonstrate what constitutes a high salary in the profession. USCIS cannot conclude the wage was high.
Company C, USA: $200,000/year. According to data, 75th percentile for software developers = $212,280. Applicant’s salary is between median and 75th percentile—falls short of a high salary.
Key lesson: Even $200,000/year in the U.S. can be INSUFFICIENT if the 75th percentile in your field = $212,280. USCIS assesses percentiles, not absolute amounts. You must be above the 90th percentile.
Three mistakes by this applicant:
- Company A: pay was good but not in the top 10%—“exceeding the median is not sufficient”
- Company B: contract lacked a job title; comparison data only showed averages—officer couldn’t determine level
- Company C: $200K sounds large but in Silicon Valley that may be below the 75th percentile
Full RFE template: what the officer requests
In multiple RFEs officers listed the exact evidence they want:
Full RFE template for high salary (from real cases)
An officer typically requests:
- W-2 or 1099 copies for years in which the beneficiary received a high salary. Alternatively—foreign tax documents establishing annual wages earned outside the U.S.
- Media reports on notably high salaries earned by others in the beneficiary’s field
- Lists from professional organizations of top earners in the field
- Geographically and position-appropriate compensation surveys (compensation surveys)
- Organizational justifications for paying above compensation data
- Data from the U.S. Department of Labor or similar sources demonstrating salary comparisons
Important: A Department of Labor prevailing wage alone usually does not establish that a salary is “significantly higher.” If you provide DOL data, supplement with additional evidence.
USCIS wording by type of evidence
How USCIS phrases requests in RFEs by evidence type
Tax documents:
USCIS requests: “Copies of the beneficiary’s W-2 or 1099 forms for years in which the beneficiary has received a high salary in the field of endeavor” and “Alternatively, the petitioner may provide similar foreign tax documents which establish yearly wages earned outside the U.S.”
Foreign applicants should provide official tax returns, income certificates, or equivalent documents recognized in the applicant’s country. Documents must clearly show annual income, not merely monthly amounts.
Media reports and top-earner lists:
USCIS requests: “Media reports of notably high salaries earned by others in the beneficiary’s field” and “List compiled by credible professional organization(s) of the top earners in a field.”
Media must be reputable business outlets, industry journals, or recognized analytics agencies. Lists from professional organizations are particularly valuable.
Compensation studies and government data:
USCIS requests: “Geographical or position appropriate compensation surveys,” “Organization justifications to pay above the compensation data,” and “Information from the U.S. Department of Labor or similar sources.”
Professional compensation studies must be relevant by geography, position level, company size and industry. “Organization justifications” are employer letters explaining why pay is above market.
For international applicants:
USCIS requires: “currency equivalent wage charts from the corresponding years of employment.”
This is NOT a simple conversion. It is comparative tables showing relative salary standing on the local market in local currency. USCIS recognizes differing economic conditions across countries and looks for evidence of relative, not absolute, standing.
Examples of documentation from approved cases
From approved cases:
An income certificate from the tax authority—detailed monthly data converted to annual sums. The petition listed annual amounts in RUB and USD with a link to an official exchange rate for the period.
Included Glassdoor data showing salaries for the position in the city (Moscow) and the target U.S. city.
Included FLC Data Center data with job title and wage level, and PayScale data for the job and city.
Another approved applicant for EB-1A attached: GorodRabot.ru, Rosstat, 2‑NDFL, SalaryExpert, SuperJob (paid certificate). These data were averaged and compared to the applicant’s salary.
Real-case denials: why officers deny
Electrical engineer from Khakassia (Russia, 2025)
“The record includes a letter from the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia with ‘average accrued wages’ of electrical engineers in the Republic of Khakassia and a web printout from GorodRabot which shows the average salary for power engineers. However, this evidence is insufficient because it does not provide the high-end salary for power engineers in Russia.”
Translation: The record had Ministry data with average wages and GorodRabot averages. This is insufficient because it does not show HIGH salaries for electrical engineers.
“The petitioner has not submitted primary documentary evidence documenting her actual salary and to show that she has ever been compensated by any organization.”
Translation: The applicant did not provide primary documentary evidence of actual salary or compensation by any organization.
Two critical mistakes: (1) Only average data from GorodRabot and Ministry—no high-percentile data. (2) No documents proving the applicant’s own salary—only regional averages. The officer cannot compare because the applicant’s real salary is unknown.
Marketer at a large company (Moscow, 2025)
“The taxes show income, but it is unknown what the source of the income was. Also, a letter is not sufficient without supporting documentary evidence. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California.”
Translation: Taxes show income but the source is unclear. A letter alone is insufficient without corroborating documents.
“The salary data submitted is not comparable to the petitioner’s job as a project manager.”
Translation: Salary data do not match the petitioner’s position as project manager.
Three mistakes: (1) Tax return shows income but not tied to professional salary—it could be rent, investments, etc. (2) Employer letter without payslips/contract—insufficient per Matter of Treasure Craft. (3) Comparison data were for marketing managers, while the position is project manager.
Arts instructor from Moscow (Russia, 2025) — criterion accepted
Rare approval example. The applicant provided correct sources:
“The petitioner provided evidence of her 2022 and 2023 salary, indicating she earned an annual income of 1,311,113.68 and 1,363,822.80 Russian Rubles (RUB) respectively. As comparative data, the petitioner provided evidence from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federal State Statistics Service indicating that high monthly salary for a Fine Arts Teacher in the Moscow Region in this highest qualification category in 2022 was 75,850 RUB (Annually: 910,200 RUB). As such, the plain language of the criterion has been met."
Translation: Applicant submitted salaries for 2022 (1,311,113 RUB) and 2023 (1,363,822 RUB). Comparative Ministry data showed the HIGH salary for a Fine Arts Teacher in Moscow Region in the top qualification category = 910,200 RUB/year. The criterion was met.
Why approved: (1) Salary was 1.5x even the reported HIGH level from state statistics. (2) Ministry data—a government source. (3) Data had breakdown by qualification level, not just averages. (4) Comparison year matched. This is how to approach the criterion.
Software engineer at a large IT corporation ($214K) — denied
“The beneficiary’s base salary is recorded as $214,566. USCIS utilizes base salary when evaluating comparison data. Therefore, benefits, dividends, stock options, and bonuses are not considered salary. The beneficiary’s title is Software Engineer for [large IT corporation], which is in [city in California]. USCIS does not find the provided comparison data reflect that of other Software Engineers in [city in California]."
Translation: Base salary $214,566. USCIS uses base salary for comparisons; benefits, dividends, stock options and bonuses are not counted as salary. Position is Software Engineer in [CA city]. USCIS found comparison data did not reflect other software engineers in that city.
Lesson: $214K in Silicon Valley may not be exceptional. The officer compares to the local market in that city and uses base salary only.
Staff Software Engineer, ML ($284K) — also denied
“You provided evidence for the position of Staff Software Engineer, Machine Learning with an annual salary of $284,050. However, the salary data does not directly compare your remuneration to those in your specific position. For example, you provided salary data for the positions of Data Scientists in U.S. and Machine Learning Engineer in Ireland; however, the duties you perform as a Staff Software Engineer, Machine Learning may be outside those expected from someone working as a Data Scientist."
Translation: Salary $284,050 for Staff Software Engineer, ML. But comparison data were for Data Scientists in the U.S. and ML Engineers in Ireland. Duties differ; comparisons were not position- or country-appropriate. Total comp compared to average base salary was incorrect.
Three problems: (1) job title mismatch, (2) cross-country comparison to Ireland, (3) total comp compared to average base salary.
Bank statement as proof — not acceptable
“Petitioner submitted what appears to be a printout of his bank account. However, petitioner did not submit evidence or an explanation to substantiate the balance in his bank account as it relates to his actual pay."
Translation: Bank statement alone does not prove salary. Funds may come from relatives, asset sales, crypto, etc. USCIS needs employer-linked documents: payslips, W-2, contracts, 2‑NDFL.
Lesson: Bank statements are not proof of salary. Use employer-paid documents.
Proffered wage on I-140 — you still must prove it’s high
“The proffered wage as stated on the Form I-140 is $X. You must provide evidence to show that the proffered wage is high for the field as a whole."
Translation: Even a high proffered wage on I-140 does not automatically satisfy the criterion. You must show the amount is high compared to others in the field. Contract + comparative data are required.
Important: A job offer on I-140 does not by itself prove the high-salary criterion. Demonstrate that the offered amount is high relative to the field.
Remote work and international situations
Remote worker from Cyprus for an IT company (Mountain View, CA)
“The petitioner claims that the petitioner was working remotely from Cyprus as a software engineer for IT-company, a company based in Mountain View, CA, but the vouchers do not establish the petitioner’s work location, the petitioner’s occupation, or the company for which the petitioner is employed."
Translation: Payment vouchers did not confirm work location, occupation, or employer.
“The petitioner does not establish that salary statistics for Cyprus are the appropriate comparison for a person working directly but remotely for a company located in Mountain View, CA."
Translation: Applicant did not justify using Cyprus salary stats for someone working remotely for a Mountain View company.
Key question for remote workers: Which market should you compare to? If you live in Cyprus but work for a U.S. company, the officer may require comparisons to both markets. Provide clear justification and tax documents.
Contractor through own company (Canada, CAD 438K)
One detailed RFE: the applicant worked through Solid Software Solutions Ltd for Citigroup, Serco and IBM:
“The evidence does not show if the payments to Solid Software Solutions Ltd for services done by the petitioner go directly to the petitioner, the petitioner and his wife, or to other parties. The self-petitioner uses the terms ‘salary’ and ‘remuneration’ interchangeably, but the record does not make it clear as to whether he received a salary from Solid Software Solutions Ltd. or a salary plus other benefits that would constitute a remuneration."
Translation: Evidence didn’t show whether payments to the company were paid to the individual, to him and his wife, or others. It was unclear whether he received a salary from the company or other forms of remuneration.
Three critical errors: (1) Company revenue CAD 438K is not personal salary. (2) Two company owners (applicant and spouse)—unclear income split. (3) Job titles differ across contracts (Senior Angular Consultant, NAM-CA-Specialty Developer - Senior, contractor, consultant). Officer denied the claim.
Photographer from Kazakhstan — entrepreneur income
“The tax declaration shows the petitioner’s income as an entrepreneur. The articles show the average monthly salary for photographers in Kazakhstan. Thus, the conversions are not comparing the same data or positions."
Translation: Tax return shows entrepreneur income; articles show average salary for employed photographers. They are not comparable.
Main problem: entrepreneur income includes business expenses, equipment costs, studio costs. Comparing business income to employed photographers’ salaries is incorrect.
Software engineer vs entrepreneur
“The petitioner has submitted evidence to compare his salary as an entrepreneur to the salaries listed at glassdoor.com of software development engineers in test who are not self-employed entrepreneurs. However, the service agreement letter indicates that the petitioner is an entrepreneur. Therefore, the basis for this comparison is flawed, as the data does not compare the remuneration of entrepreneurs."
Translation: Comparing entrepreneur income to employed engineers’ salaries is flawed; data do not compare entrepreneurs.
In another RFE the officer said that job-site data for employed engineers don’t apply to contractor income from an international bank.
For entrepreneurs: If you operate as self-employed/contractor, don’t compare to employed salaries. Find data on entrepreneur income in your field or demonstrate contract rates relative to top earners.
Unsigned letter — not credible
“The petitioner submitted a verification of employment letter listing the beneficiary’s hourly wage rate as $52.67 and her prior calendar year total gross earnings as $111,416.24. However, the letter is unsigned, and the writer’s name and job title are omitted. As such, USCIS does not consider the letter to be credible, probative evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369."
Translation: An unsigned employment letter without the author’s name and title is not credible evidence.
Rule: Salary documents must be on official letterhead, signed, with the signer’s name and title. Unsigned letters lack probative value (see Matter of Chawathe).
Accountant from Bishkek — data problems
“The salary information states an average salary, but does not state if that average salary is monthly, yearly, etc. Moreover, the salary information does not state the high salary for each occupation. The job index does not state the type of currency the salary is in and how many job positions were evaluated."
Translation: Salary data showed an average but did not clarify period (monthly/yearly), did not provide high-salary figures, did not state currency or sample size.
In another RFE the officer added:
“Without clear evidence of the petitioner’s earnings to include type of currency and evidence to compare the wages of other Chief Accountants in each geographical area USCIS is unable to determine if the petitioner’s earnings are higher than others in the same field."
Translation: Without clear evidence including currency type and comparative data for Chief Accountants in each region, USCIS cannot determine if the applicant’s earnings are higher than peers.
Checklist for salary data: Ensure comparative data include: (1) period (month/year), (2) currency, (3) not only averages but high-percentile figures (90th), (4) number of surveyed positions, (5) exact match of geography and occupation.
Stock options and contractor agreements are not a W-2 substitute
“A contractor agreement, a stock option grant, an equity incentive plan, and wage data were submitted. This criterion has not been met because clear evidence of the beneficiary’s pay was not submitted."
Translation: Contracts and stock options are not sufficient—clear evidence of actual pay is required.
Important: A contract shows promised pay. Stock options are potential future value. USCIS wants evidence of actual pay: W-2s, payslips, tax forms. Options can supplement but not replace wage documents.
FAQ
How much do I need to earn to pass this criterion?
There is no fixed sum. USCIS does not set a minimum salary. Your income must be substantially higher than most professionals in your field and region. A practical benchmark is being in the 90th percentile or above. The “3x average” rule is a useful heuristic but not an official requirement.
Can I use salary in rubles?
Yes—and you should. If you worked in Russia, USCIS expects data in rubles. Simple conversion to USD is not accepted. Compare your salary in rubles to the local market. Optionally show comparison with the U.S. market if your income is 3–4 times higher than comparable U.S. professionals.
Are bonuses and stock options counted?
Yes. The statute says “high salary or other remuneration for services,” which includes bonuses, stock options, RSUs, fees, and other compensation. Document all: contracts detailing bonus schemes, evidence of option exercises, payout confirmations.
What if I am a freelancer with variable income?
More complicated. USCIS must be able to calculate annual income. Provide full tax returns for each year, all payment records, client contracts, and a written explanation of income variability. Freelancers must show complete annual income, not just peak months.
Can I claim this criterion if I work outside the U.S.?
Yes. The criterion is not limited to U.S.-based work. Compare your salary to the local labor market in local currency. DO NOT simply convert to USD. Use currency-equivalent wage charts showing your relative position. Consider hiring local HR agencies.
What are the most critical mistakes that lead to denial?
Three nearly guaranteed denial triggers: (1) lack of upper-percentile data—violates Matter of Price; (2) simple currency conversion—USCIS rejects this; (3) occupation mismatch—e.g., using software developer data for a software engineer claim.
Is one high salary enough to get O-1/EB-1A approved?
No. Under Kazarian, even if you formally satisfy a criterion, USCIS performs a final merits determination. A high salary is one of several criteria and must be corroborated by other evidence of extraordinary ability. For O-1 you need at least 3 of the 10 criteria; EB-1A likewise requires 3 of 10 (unless you have a one-time internationally recognized award).
What is prevailing wage and why is it insufficient alone?
Prevailing wage is the minimum wage an employer must pay an immigrant worker for a certain position and region (determined by the Department of Labor). USCIS states: “prevailing wage rate information alone does not generally establish whether the salary is ‘significantly’ higher than that of others in the field.” You need additional evidence: percentiles, industry reports, and comparisons to top earners.
Remember that the high-salary criterion is not merely showing a good income. USCIS looks for evidence that you belong to the “small percentage who have risen to the very top” of your profession. Prepare your documentation systematically: every piece of evidence should support the overall case showing your exceptional standing.
If you received an RFE, analyze each point carefully. USCIS often explains exactly what is missing—use that as an action plan. Do not try to “work around” requirements with simplistic fixes (currency conversion, averages). USCIS follows clear guidance and precedents.
Information in this article is based on community experience and public sources. This is not legal advice. For your specific situation consult a licensed attorney.