Analyzing the high-salary criterion for O-1 and EB-1A: how much you need to earn, which 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 gist: your income is substantially higher than that of most specialists 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 the absolute amount but at your position relative to other specialists. A $150k salary can 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 exactly the 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 Russian
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;
- 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.
Note: USCIS explicitly states that a prospective salary (by contract or job offer) also qualifies. You do not have to already be earning the high salary at the time of filing the petition.
Wording in the regulations
In regulation this is criterion number 9, 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(ix):
Wording of the high-salary criterion
Literal 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 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 figures are not appropriate for comparison. Data on upper percentiles is required.
What the officer actually 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 belonging to the “small percentage” at the top of the profession. USCIS expects to see salary distribution data with focus on the upper percentiles (90th, 95th or higher).
Two-step assessment per precedent Kazarian v. USCIS (2010):
- Formal eligibility: 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 the evidence truly demonstrates a top-tier position in 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 consistency with the field stated in I-140/I-129 petition. Make sure the title is the same across all documents.
Step 2: Collect documents of actual salary
Tax documents and income verification
Tax documents are the gold standard of income evidence for USCIS. Provide documents for all years during which the high salary is claimed.
Which documents are needed:
| Country | Documents |
|---|---|
| USA | W-2 (from employer), 1099 (freelance/contract) for all relevant years |
| Russia | 2-НДФЛ, personal tax return, certificate of income from employer |
| Other countries | Equivalent tax returns with translations and apostille |
Additionally: employment contracts specifying compensation, all paystubs when income varies, documents on bonuses, options, other compensation forms, and a written explanation of any income variations.
Partial documents are not accepted. USCIS notes: “the beneficiary’s monthly income varied, and therefore it is not possible to determine yearly 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
The average salary in your region for your professional direction should be 3 or more times lower than your annual salary. At least three independent sources are required. Data must be current (no older than 2–3 years).
Important comparisons should cover:
- specialists in the same professional field as you
- market data for the region where you live/work
- evidence for the same period
- amounts indicated both in local currency and in USD equivalent (using the same exchange rate)
For correct comparison you must use comparable data — same calendar year. Preferably within three–five years.
How to research your high salary
Fill in for yourself:
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Official job title (per O*NET/SOC) | $ |
| Current salary | $ |
| Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) | $ |
| O*Net | $ |
| FLC Data Center | $ |
If you work outside the U.S., find other suitable salary databases for your country.
Data sources for comparison
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 — the official site of the U.S. Department of Labor containing salary and job information related to H-1B, H-2A, and H-2B visas. Employers can view average wages for workers with various qualifications. The site provides information about employers and visa distribution by state and industry.
You can also use: media articles and rankings on salary levels, screenshots of job postings from major companies or job sites, industry reports from Deloitte, PwC, McKinsey, Korn Ferry.
In this criterion it is helpful to reference U.S. statistics and show salary levels of comparable specialists in the U.S. labor market if your income consistently exceeds comparable U.S. specialists’ salaries by 3–4 times.
Step 4: Prepare comparative analysis
Create a table and calculate the percentile
Create a comparison table of your salary against upper percentiles. Calculate your exact percentile. Prepare data visualization. Write an executive summary with key conclusions.
Step 5: Additional evidence
Media reports and employer letters
Media publications about high salaries in your profession. Letters from employers explaining reasons for high compensation ("organization justifications to pay above the compensation data"). Documents about special achievements justifying the salary. Comparison with publicly known salaries.
What works and what does not
What is considered good evidence
Tax documents with stamps—gold standard for USCIS. Show consistently high income.
Detailed compensation studies for your exact position and location. Show your place in the distribution.
Salary rankings from Forbes, Bloomberg, industry publications. Official studies from professional associations.
Explain why your salary is above market: unique skills, critical role, direct impact on revenue.
Show earnings hierarchy and where you stand relative to leaders.
What is NOT considered good evidence
Per Matter of Price — average figures do not show whether you are among the highly paid. A simple exceedance of the average may only mean you are in the upper half.
USCIS rejects this approach. "Currency equivalent wage charts"—comparative tables in local currency showing your position on the local market—are required.
Bank statements not tied to employment contracts. Informal certificates. USCIS requires complete and consistent documentary evidence.
Tables for software developer instead of software engineer. PHP developer salaries in Russia while income was earned in Georgia. USCIS considers this "distinctly different".
USCIS explicitly 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 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) confirmed 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 the specific state/metropolitan area
- Show that you exceed not only the prevailing wage but also the 90th percentile
- Use industry compensation studies
- Document all forms of compensation (base + bonus + equity)
For those working abroad:
- DO NOT convert to USD
- Find local compensation studies in the local currency
- Focus on relative position (percentiles)
- Use data from international companies with offices in your country
- Show comparison with known leaders of the local market
- If necessary, involve local HR experts
Universal recommendations:
- Always show multi-year salary growth
- Link high salary to other achievements (publications, awards, industry impact)
- Ensure complete consistency across all documents
- Prepare excess evidence—better more than less
- If you receive an RFE—answer each point separately
- Use professional help for complex cases
Common mistakes and RFEs
Frequency ranking of denial reasons
| Error | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Using averages instead of upper percentiles | 50% of cases |
| Insufficient documentary proof of income | 50% of cases |
| Problems with currency conversion | 33% of cases |
| Occupation mismatch in the 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 use of average salary figures. Matter of Price establishes a fundamental rule: averages do not show whether you are among the highly paid. Using only averages does not demonstrate the exceptional quality required for EB-1A.
In another RFE an officer explained why averages are inadequate (this phrasing 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 needed to show that a salary is high '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."
The officer emphasizes that “others in the field” specifically means top-level specialists, not everyone. If your salary is above the average, that indicates you are in the upper half, but not that you are in the upper percentiles.
In another RFE the officer reiterated this with a different key 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 law says 'others in the field', it refers to only the salaries of those at the top level of the field ... The petitioner refers to the average salary data, not just those at the top level. Consequently, comparison to average salary data ... is not a proper comparison."
Simply put: filing for EB-1A asserts you are at the top. Therefore you must compare 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 equate to a 'high salary' for purposes of satisfying this criterion."
This short phrase appears in multiple RFEs and clearly separates “above average” and “high.” For USCIS these are different things.
What applicants did wrong:
- Used data from the Federal State Statistics Service without breakdown by levels
- Submitted reports with averages
- Relied on job-site data without percentiles
- Did not show their position relative to top specialists
- Used GorodRabot.ru, hh.ru, SuperJob only with averages (no percentiles)
- Submitted erieri.com data with average salary only (no upper range)
Fix: Seek data showing salaries at the 90th, 95th percentile or higher. Use specialized compensation studies. Provide lists of top earners from professional organizations. Document factors justifying placement in the top 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 relate to an unrelated occupation, namely software developer. The petitioner is filing 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 evidence of the average salary for a PHP developer in Russia, but your earnings were in Georgia."
USCIS requires precise matches between the declared occupation and salary data. Even close occupations (“software developer” vs “software engineer”) are treated as different. Geographic mismatch is also critical: you cannot use salary data from one country to justify a high salary earned in another.
In another RFE the officer explained the occupation requirement in detail (this phrasing 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 ... To demonstrate that your remuneration is high in relation to your peers you must provide evidence comparing your remuneration to your peers in specific positions in the specific field."
Note: the officer does not just demand comparison with “managers.” He specifies the full job title and area. If I-140 states “General & Operations Manager in management and development of digital companies,” you must compare with that exact position, not with “CEO” or “Director.”
In another RFE the officer rejected data for “fitness trainer” while the petitioner worked as 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 finds that 'fitness trainer' and 'power lifting coach' are not the same occupation. A fitness trainer is a generalist ... A powerlifting coach is a specialist ..."
The officer himself researched both definitions to show the difference. Do not expect “similar” occupations to be accepted as identical.
In an RFE for a civil engineer the officer pointed out 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 position is in civil engineering management, and the printouts show entry level positions for civil engineers. Also, the printouts show civil engineers for 2025 which is not the year of the claimed salary."
Here there are two mismatches: (1) data for entry-level, not management level, and (2) data for a different year. The year of comparative data must match the year of your income.
What applicants did wrong:
- Used data for Software Developer instead of Software Engineer
- Compared PHP Developer salary in Russia with Web Developer income in Georgia
- Used data for Chief Engineer instead of Architectural Manager
- Ignored geographic labor market differences
- Provided data for Data Scientists while the I-140 position was Staff Software Engineer, Machine Learning
- Provided entry-level data for a management-level position
- Submitted data for 2025 while salary was in 2023
Fix: Use data only for the exact matching occupation. Ensure geographic correspondence between workplace and data. Consult the O*NET classification and SOC codes (O*NET).
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 currency conversions to establish high salaries. Instead, the petitioner must submit currency equivalent wage charts for the corresponding years of employment."
"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 to USD, which has no relevance unless you're receiving payment in the U.S."
USCIS emphatically rejects simple currency conversion. “Currency equivalent wage charts” are NOT a simple conversion. They are comparative tables showing relative salary levels on the local labor market in the local currency. Purchasing power and salary levels differ dramatically across countries.
In one RFE an officer detailed the conversion problem for an applicant working remotely from the UK 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 in determining whether the petitioner has commanded a high salary ... A U.K. salary comparative statistic cannot be applied to a position and salary earned by U.S. standards. Therefore, this has little probative value as analysis and evidence should remain in the original currency."
This is an illustrative case: the applicant received $152K from a U.S. company while living in London. He compared salary against the UK market by converting. The officer said you must compare in the currency in which the salary was paid and against the market where the company operates.
In another RFE the officer rejected evidence because salary was in foreign currency without explanation (this phrasing appears in 3+ RFEs):
"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."
"The wage reports are not specific to your position or to an experienced professional in the field. In addition, wages appear in currency that is not U.S. dollars and you have submitted no evidence of current currency conversion charts."
The officer demands “currency conversion charts,” not a simple conversion. That means: show how your salary relates to other salaries on your local market.
Common trap: An applicant whose salary is above average in their country may have a low salary when converted to USD, but that does not mean they are not highly paid in their region. USCIS assesses relative position, not absolute amounts.
Mistake 4: Insufficient documentary evidence
"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 that the petitioner's monthly income varied and therefore it is not possible to determine yearly income from a few paystubs."
USCIS requires full and consistent documentary proof for the entire period. Variable income poses special problems, especially for freelancers and entrepreneurs with irregular earnings.
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 certificates of income for 2022 and 2023 showing total revenue for those years. However, you did not provide an employment letter verifying your actual salary and job position for 2022 and 2023. USCIS cannot determine whether the total revenue on the certificates was/is your base salary for those years."
Key point: 2-НДФЛ or a certificate of income shows total income, but USCIS wants to know that this income is specifically salary from professional employment. Without an employer letter or contract, the officer cannot link the income to the job.
In another RFE the officer requested explanations for discrepancies in reported salaries:
"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 the beneficiary's monthly salary: 230,000 RUB and 207,000 RUB. Discrepancies call into question the ability to document requirements. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence."
If the contract shows one amount and a certificate another, the officer may not only reject this criterion but cast doubt on ALL evidence in the petition. This refers to precedent 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. Also, a letter without supporting documentary evidence is insufficient. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California."
The officer wants to understand the SOURCE of income. If a tax return shows income but it’s unclear whether it’s salary, rent, investments, or sale of property—the criterion will not be accepted. You need linkage: contract + payslips + tax document.
"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. Also, a letter without supporting documentary evidence is insufficient. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California."
The officer needs to see how the income was generated. For entrepreneurs, payroll records, contracts, and employer/payor documentation are especially important.
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."
"Wage reports submitted are based in USD. It is noted that the vast majority of the petitioner's employment was outside the United States."
USCIS requires understanding of the local labor market context. Absolute amounts can be misleading when comparing across countries. You must demonstrate relative position via percentiles, rankings, or comparison to known high-paid positions.
Mistake 6: Multiple job titles in the petition
One frequent pitfall: different job titles appear across recommendation letters, contracts, and other documents. USCIS pays close attention to 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."
"It is noted that the record shows many different job titles and roles for the beneficiary. Therefore, the record contains no objective earnings data showing a 'high salary' compared to those performing similar work."
This phrasing appears in 5+ RFEs across professions (graphic designers, art directors, museum specialists, software engineers). The officer sees that in some documents the applicant is “software developer,” in others “team lead,” in others “CTO.” If titles vary, the officer cannot determine with whom to compare salary.
Fix: Ensure that the job title in I-140, the contract, recommendation letters, and comparison data match. If you had multiple roles, prepare an explanatory letter about career progression and focus comparisons on your current role.
Mistake 7: Evidence submitted AFTER the filing date
"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 filing the I-140 on March 4, 2025, and therefore it cannot be considered probative. A petitioner must show eligibility at filing; a petition cannot be approved later after new facts arise."
Rule from Matter of Katigbak: your salary and comparative data must be current as of the filing date. If you filed I-140 in March 2025, salary data from June 2025 will be rejected.
Mistake 8: Company revenue instead of personal salary (for 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 financial documentation about his company. The comparison data was for companies rather than individuals. The criterion requires evidence that the person has commanded a high salary relative to others, not the financial condition of the petitioner's business."
In another RFE the officer detailed this issue 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."
"USCIS notes tax documents were provided without objective supporting documentation to demonstrate how the income was generated, how much went to other employees, and what exactly the beneficiary's salary was from this revenue."
If you own a company, the officer will request: (1) contracts showing revenue sources; (2) payroll records listing all employees; (3) clear split between company revenue and your personal compensation; (4) Form 941s (quarterly employer tax reports).
For entrepreneurs: Schedule C on Form 1040 shows business income, but USCIS wants to know your personal salary out of that income. If you are CEO of your LLC, show a W-2 paid to yourself, K-1 distributions, or a corporate resolution on your compensation.
Mistake 9: Difference between “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 between salary and remuneration. Salary must be high, 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."
The criterion says “high salary OR other significantly high remuneration.” If you claim salary—you need to show it is high. If you claim remuneration (salary + bonuses + equity)—the threshold is higher: it must be “significantly high.” Comparative data must also include bonuses and equity of other specialists.
"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 when evaluating comparison data. Therefore, benefits, dividends, stock options, and bonuses are not considered salary for this criterion."
Important detail: if you show total compensation ($214K base + bonuses + equity = $350K), and compare it to average base salary ($180K)—that is incorrect. Either compare base to base or total comp to total comp.
"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 when evaluating comparison data. Benefits, dividends, stock options, and bonuses are not considered salary for this criterion."
Mistake 10: Problems with translations and document formatting
"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 submitted to USCIS must be accompanied by a full English translation certified as complete and accurate, and the translator's certification of competence to translate."
In one RFE the officer separately pointed out an issue with electronic 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 of evidence that were reduced or altered; such documentation is inadmissible. Submit ordinary legible photocopies of originals in original size. For internet documents, submit screenshots showing the full URL on each page."
A common mistake: applicants cut out needed parts of web pages and paste them into their own documents. USCIS rejects such “homemade” evidence. Screenshots must show full URL, date, and original page appearance.
Mistake 11: Data from unreliable sites (user-reported data)
"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 salary data from glassdoor.com; printouts indicate the information is based on user-submitted salaries. Thus, the survey may not be valid and will not be considered. User-reported data may not be a valid comparison if too few users reported salaries or data is not credible."
This is directly from the USCIS Policy Manual. Glassdoor, PayScale and other user-reported sites can be rejected if the officer finds the sample insufficient. Supplement such data with government statistics (BLS, Rosstat) or professional studies.
In another RFE the officer pointed out conflicting findings between two 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 2023 bls.gov data showing annual mean wage $181,220. In contrast, Glassdoor reflects base pay $133K–$176K. USCIS notes inconsistent findings when comparing the two wage documents."
If your two sources contradict each other the officer will notice and question both. Ensure data from different sources align, or explain discrepancies.
Legal precedents
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (1994) — average or median salary levels are not an appropriate basis for determining a “high salary in relation to others in the field.” Even top-league athletes do not automatically meet the “extraordinary ability” standard. A salary substantially above normal levels is required.
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) — defines the two-step EB-1A assessment. Even if the applicant formally meets a criterion, USCIS will conduct a “final merits determination.” High salary must be supported by other evidence of extraordinary ability.
Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) — the court compared an NHL enforcer’s salary with other NHL enforcers, not league average. The precedent establishes: compare with people in equivalent positions, not everyone in the field.
Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 — the court compared an NHL defenseman’s salary with other NHL defensemen. Confirms that comparison must be precise by position.
Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App’x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) — court found that “salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field.” If you’re a manager, you cannot compare your salary to rank-and-file workers. Often cited alongside Matter of Price.
Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, No. 3:18-CV-01200-H-AGS, 2019 WL 2330181 (S.D. Cal. 2019) — court confirmed that average salary levels do not provide an appropriate basis for comparison. This case became a common reference in salary RFEs.
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.” If an officer finds contradictions in salary documents, they may question ALL evidence in the petition.
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (BIA 1972) — “Simply going on record without substantive evidence to support assertions is not sufficient.” An employer letter without supporting documents (payslips, contract, tax forms) is insufficient.
In multiple RFEs officers quote these precedents directly:
“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 that their salary is “high” compared to those performing similar work in the same period.
Detailed analysis: Software Engineer with three employers
One of the most detailed RFEs on salary—an officer analyzed three positions and rejected all three:
Company A, Belarus: “$4,970/mo. Comparative data for software engineers in Minsk: median $2,983, 75th percentile $4,200, 90th $5,300. The applicant’s salary is between the 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/mo). But: (1) contract does not state applicant’s position; (2) comparison data shows only average salaries for junior/average/senior developer — unclear which level to compare; (3) data does not show what constitutes a high salary in this profession. USCIS cannot conclude the wage was high.”
Company C, USA: “$200,000/yr. According to data, the 75th percentile for software developers = $212,280. The applicant’s salary is between median and 75th percentile — falls short of a high salary.”
Key lesson: Even $200,000/yr in the U.S. can be INSUFFICIENT if the 75th percentile in your area = $212,280. USCIS looks at percentiles, not absolute amounts. You need to be ABOVE the 90th percentile.
Three mistakes by this applicant:
- Company A: salary good but not in top 10% — “simply exceeding the median is not sufficient”
- Company B: large IT corporation, Poland: contract without job title + data only show averages — officer cannot determine comparison level
- Company C: $200K sounds high, but in the context of the software engineer market in the U.S. — below the 75th percentile
Full RFE template on salary: what the officer asks for
In several RFEs officers listed the exact evidence they want to see:
Full RFE template on high salary (from real cases)
An officer typically requests:
- W-2 or 1099 for the years when the beneficiary received a high salary. Alternatively — similar foreign tax documents establishing annual wages earned outside the U.S.
- Media reports about 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)
- Organization justifications for paying above compensation data
- Data from the U.S. Department of Labor or similar sources, showing salary comparisons
Important: Prevailing wage from the Department of Labor ALONE usually does not establish that a salary is “significantly higher.” If you provide DOL data—supplement with other evidence.
USCIS phrasing by evidence type in RFEs
Phrasing USCIS uses in RFEs for each 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.”
For work outside the U.S., official tax returns, certificates of income from tax authorities, or equivalent documents accepted in your country are acceptable. Documents must clearly show annual income, not just monthly sums.
Media reports and top earners 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 reports must be from authoritative sources—business outlets, industry journals, recognized analytics agencies. Lists from professional organizations are especially valuable, showing earnings hierarchy.
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 in geography, job level, company size and industry. “Organization justifications” are letters from employers explaining why your salary is above market.
For international applicants:
USCIS requires: “currency equivalent wage charts from the corresponding years of employment”
This is NOT a simple currency conversion. It is comparative tables showing relative salary levels on the local labor market in the local currency. USCIS understands that different countries have different economic conditions and seeks evidence of your relative, not absolute, position.
Example document preparation from real approved cases
From approved-case practice:
A certificate of income from the tax office—certificate of income and tax amounts for the individual. Monthly data were converted to yearly totals. The petition cited the total in rubles and immediately in dollars. A link to the official site with the exchange rate for the period was included.
Glassdoor screenshots were attached—salaries for the position in the city of activity (Moscow) and for the target U.S. city.
FLC Data Center data indicating the position and wage level were attached. PayScale data for salary by city and position were included.
Another petitioner for EB-1A attached: GorodRabot.ru, Rosstat, 2-НДФЛ, SalaryExpert, SuperJob (paid report). These data were averaged and compared to the applicant’s salary.
Real-case reasons for denial
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 contains a Ministry letter with “average accrued wages” for electrical engineers in Khakassia and GorodRabot data. However, this evidence 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 petitioner did not submit primary documentary evidence of her actual salary and that she was paid by any organization.
Two critical errors: (1) Data only on average wages from GorodRabot and Ministry—no upper-percentile data. (2) No documents confirming the applicant’s own salary—only regional averages. The officer cannot compare because the applicant’s real salary is unknown.
Marketer from 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: Tax documents show income, but the SOURCE is unknown. Also, a letter is insufficient without supporting documents.
“The salary data submitted is not comparable to the petitioner’s job as a project manager.”
Translation: The salary data do not match the petitioner’s position as project manager.
Three errors: (1) Tax return shows income but not that it’s professional salary—it could be rent, investments, etc. (2) Employer letter without supporting documents (payslips, contract)—see Matter of Treasure Craft. (3) Comparison data are for marketing managers while the position is project manager.
Fine arts teacher from Moscow (Russia, 2025) — criterion accepted
Rare approval example. The applicant provided correct-source data:
“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: The petitioner provided salary evidence for 2022 (1,311,113 RUB) and 2023 (1,363,822 RUB). As comparative data she provided Ministry statistics showing that the HIGH salary for a Fine Arts Teacher in the highest qualification category in Moscow = 910,200 RUB/yr. The criterion was met.
Why approved: (1) Salary was 1.5x even the HIGH level per government statistics. (2) Data were from the Ministry—government source. (3) Data included breakdown by qualification category, not just averages. (4) Comparison for the same year. This is the correct approach.
Software engineer at [large IT company] ($214K) — criterion rejected
“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 company], which is in [city, CA]. USCIS does not find the provided comparison data reflect that of other Software Engineers in [city, CA].”
Translation: The beneficiary’s base salary is $214,566. USCIS uses base salary for comparisons; benefits, dividends, stock options, bonuses are not salary. The role is Software Engineer in [city, CA]. USCIS finds the provided comparison data do not reflect other Software Engineers in [city, CA].
Lesson: $214K at [large IT company] — and denial. Why? Silicon Valley context where $214K for a software engineer is not exceptional. The officer requires comparison specifically for [city, CA], not the USA overall, and uses base salary only.
Staff Software Engineer, ML ($284K) — also rejected
“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 Scientists.”
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 of a Staff Software Engineer, ML may differ from a Data Scientist.
Three problems: (1) job title in data does not match I-140; (2) comparison with another country (Ireland); (3) total comp compared to average base salary.
Bank account as evidence — does not work
“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 submitted, but no evidence/explanation linking the balance to actual salary.
Lesson: Bank statement is NOT proof of salary. Funds may be from relatives, asset sales, crypto. USCIS needs employer-linked documents: payslips, W-2, contract, 2-НДФЛ.
Proffered wage on I-140 — still must be proven
“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: The proffered wage on Form I-140 is $X. You must show that this wage is high for the field as a whole.
Important: Even if the employer offers a high proffered wage in I-140, that does not automatically satisfy the criterion. You must still show that this amount is high relative to others in your field. Contract + comparative data = mandatory combination.
Real cases: 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: The applicant claims he worked remotely from Cyprus as a software engineer for an IT company in Mountain View, CA, but payment vouchers do not establish 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: The applicant did not justify that Cyprus salary statistics are appropriate for someone working remotely for a Mountain View, CA company.
Key question for remote workers: Which market to compare to? If you live in Cyprus but work for a U.S. company, the officer may require comparisons to both markets. You must justify your choice and back it with tax documents.
Contractor through own company (Canada, CAD 438K)
One of the most detailed RFE analyses. The applicant worked through his company 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 does not show whether payments to Solid Software Solutions Ltd were paid direct to the petitioner, the petitioner and his wife, or others. The petitioner uses “salary” and “remuneration” interchangeably, but the record does not clarify whether he received a salary from the company or salary plus other benefits.
Three critical errors: (1) Company revenue CAD 438K is not personal salary. (2) Company has two owners (applicant and wife) — unclear revenue division. (3) Job titles in contracts differ. The officer rejected everything.
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 declaration shows applicant’s income as entrepreneur. Articles show average monthly salaries for photographers. Thus different categories/positions are compared.
Key problem: entrepreneur income and employee salary are different. Entrepreneurs bear expenses; their “income” may include expense recovery. Comparing entrepreneur income to average salary of employed photographers 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: Applicant compared entrepreneur income with salaries of employed SDETs on Glassdoor. But he is an entrepreneur—comparison is flawed.
In another RFE on a similar situation the officer noted: job-site salary data for employed engineers are not applicable to an entrepreneur’s contract income.
For entrepreneurs: If you work as a sole proprietor/LLC and compare your income to employed salaries, the officer will reject. Find data on entrepreneurs’ incomes in your field, or show contract rates compared 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: A verification letter listing wage and earnings was unsigned and lacked author name/title. USCIS does not consider it credible. Matter of Chawathe sets the standard for “credible, probative evidence.”
Rule: Every salary document must be on official letterhead, signed, with the signer’s name and title. Without a signature = no probative value.
Accountant from Bishkek — data issues
“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 information gives an average but doesn’t specify monthly/annual. Also does not state the high salary. Currency and sample size are not indicated.
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 showing currency and comparative data for chief accountants in each geographic area, USCIS cannot determine if the applicant’s earnings are higher.
Checklist for salary data: Ensure your comparative data includes: (1) period (month/year), (2) currency, (3) not only average but high salaries (90th percentile), (4) number of positions surveyed, (5) exact match of geography and occupation.
Stock options and contractor agreements — not a replacement for W-2
“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: Contract, stock option grant, equity plan and wage data were submitted. The criterion was not met because clear evidence of actual pay was not submitted.
Important: A contract shows promised pay. Stock options are potential future value. USCIS wants to see actual payment: W-2, payslips, tax documents. Options can supplement but not replace.
FAQ
How much do I need to earn to meet this criterion?
There is no specific amount. USCIS does not set a minimum salary. Your income must be substantially higher than most specialists in your field and region. A rule of thumb—be in the 90th percentile or above. The “3x the average” rule is a useful guideline 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 Russian labor market. You may additionally show comparison to the U.S. market if your income exceeds comparable U.S. salaries by 3–4x.
Are bonuses and stock options counted?
Yes. The statute says “high salary or other remuneration for services.” This includes bonuses, stock options, RSUs, fees and other forms of compensation. Document everything: contracts specifying bonus schemes, records of option exercise, payment confirmations.
What if I’m a freelancer with variable income?
This is more complex. USCIS requires the ability to calculate annual income precisely. Provide full tax returns for each year, all payment documents, contracts with clients, and a written explanation of income variability. Freelancers must show a full annual picture, not just “best” months.
Can I claim this criterion if I don’t work in the U.S.?
Yes. The criterion is not limited to work in the U.S. But you must compare your salary to the local labor market in the local currency. DO NOT convert to USD. Use currency equivalent wage charts — show your relative position among specialists in your country. Engage local HR agencies if needed.
What are the most critical mistakes leading to denial?
Three mistakes that almost guarantee denial: (1) lack of upper-percentile data — violates Matter of Price; (2) simple currency conversion — USCIS rejects it; (3) occupation mismatch — data for “software developer” while filing as “software engineer.”
Is one high salary enough for O-1/EB-1A approval?
No. Per Kazarian, formal satisfaction of a criterion does not guarantee approval. High salary is one criterion and must be supported by other evidence of extraordinariness. For O-1 you need at least 3 of 10 criteria; for EB-1A also 3 of 10 (unless you have a single internationally recognized award).
What is prevailing wage and why isn’t it enough?
Prevailing wage is the minimum salary an employer must pay a foreign worker for a given 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.” Additional evidence is required: percentiles, industry reports, comparison with top specialists.
Remember, the high-salary criterion is not just demonstrating a good income. USCIS looks for proof that you are in the “small percentage who have risen to the very top” of your profession. Approach document preparation systematically: every piece of evidence should support the overall goal—showing your exceptional position.
If you received an RFE, study each point carefully. USCIS usually explains what is missing—use that as a roadmap. Do not try to “shortcut” the requirements (currency conversion, averages). USCIS follows explicit instructions and precedents.