RFE on the "High remuneration" criterion: common objections and how to respond
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
Broken down from 70 real denials and RFEs on this criterion: which objections officers raise most often, what each one means and what closes it. Community experience, not legal advice.
Common objections (7)
no comparison to the field
USCIS says the income has not been shown to be high compared with other professionals in the same field.
What fixes it: Add relevant benchmarks for the same occupation, level, region, and time period, with a percentile calculation.Tool How it was closed
both elements are not proven
The officer points out that evidence is needed both of the income itself and of its being significantly high relative to the market.
What fixes it: Submit a set of contracts, payments, tax documents, and market comparisons, explaining how each piece of evidence satisfies the criterion.Tool How it was closed
average salaries are not enough
USCIS does not accept general average or local salary surveys as sufficient evidence of high compensation.
What fixes it: Replace the average figures with narrow industry data showing upper percentiles and comparable positions.Tool How it was closed
bank statements do not show high remuneration
Bank statements alone do not establish that the deposits were payment for services or that the payment was high for the field.
What fixes it: Add contracts, invoices, tax forms, and a table linking each payment to professional services.Tool How it was closed
company income instead of personal pay
Service agreements with a company or consulting firm do not prove the beneficiary's personal salary or compensation.
What fixes it: Show what portion of the payments was personally paid to the petitioner as salary/remuneration, with supporting payroll or tax documents.Tool How it was closed
no certified translation
The officer noted that the filing did not include proper certified translations of the submitted documents.
What fixes it: Provide full certified translations for all non-English documents and connect them to the originals.Tool How it was closed
future income does not prove commanded
Evidence of future or expected income does not show that the petitioner has already received high compensation.
What fixes it: Focus on payments actually received for prior periods and document them.Tool How it was closed
How to respond (from real cases)
The deadline (up to 87 days), the packet order and how long a decision takes - in the general guide to the RFE response by criterion.
No comparison with the field
Show that the applicant's personal compensation is significantly higher than the typical level for the same role, industry, region, and period.
What to attach: Comparison table with industry sources, salary surveys, government statistics data, recruiting platform reports, explanation of methodology.
Both elements of the criterion are not proven
Break the argument into two elements: compensation actually received and its high level relative to comparable specialists.
What to attach: Contracts, pay stubs, tax forms, bank deposits, comparative analysis with the median and upper percentiles in the field.
Average salaries are insufficient
Use not only average values, but also upper percentiles, senior-level compensation ranges, and data for similar positions.
What to attach: Reports with percentiles, compensation surveys, industry salary benchmarks, a table calculating the excess over the 75th or 90th percentile.
Statements do not show high remuneration
Link each bank deposit to its payment source and show the total personal compensation for the relevant period.
What to attach: Annotated bank statements, payroll records, invoice-payment mapping, employer or client letters, tax returns.
Company income instead of personal pay
Separate company revenue from the applicant's personal income and present only payments, dividends, or other amounts actually received personally.
What to attach: Profit distribution records, payroll, K-1 or similar forms, tax documents, bank deposits to a personal account.
no certified translation
Resubmit all non-English documents with a full certified translation and proof of the translator's competence.
What to attach: Certified translation, copy of the original, translator's statement of accuracy and language proficiency, consistent exhibit numbering.
Future income does not prove commanded remuneration
Do not rely on projections as the main evidence. Use them only as additional context for already received high compensation.
What to attach: Historical payments, tax documents, confirmed bonuses, executed contracts, and a future offer or projected compensation - as supporting evidence.
Mistakes that sink the response
- Comparing income to the overall average salary in the country without accounting for occupation, region, and position level - that argument often looks weak.
- Using only one commercial salary website with no methodology, no sample confirmation, and no official data.
- Showing business revenue or sole proprietor turnover as personal income without separating expenses, taxes, and actually received professional compensation.
- Not converting currency, not stating the income period, mixing monthly and annual amounts, gross and net, different years, or different markets in one table.
- Claiming high income but not attaching primary documents: taxes, contracts, payments, bank statements, or employer letters.
How often the criterion is accepted in challenged petitions
Among petitions that drew an RFE, NOID or denial and claimed this criterion, the officer accepted it in 14% of cases (23 of 160).
This is not an approval rate. The sample is petitions that were challenged, so it says how often a claimed criterion survived scrutiny - nothing about how often EB-1A petitions succeed overall.
Based on: 253 coded USCIS I-140 notices (RFE, NOID, denial) · updated Sep 6, 2026 · RFE by criterion
The wording of the criterion, sentence by sentence
This criterion elsewhere on the site
Got an RFE? Upload it - we will break down the objections automatically
A free response plan from your document: we identify the officer's objections and suggest what to attach.
From community practice
High remuneration is judged against the market for your profession and region; discussions advise attaching industry salary surveys as a benchmark.
Premium processing speeds up adjudication but does not raise the chance of approval - the community repeats this constantly: evidence quality decides, not speed.
An RFE is not a denial. Members note that a structured response with additional independent evidence often leads to approval.
Distilled from public community chats - observations, not legal advice.
From community discussions
«Marriage and birth certificates are needed in the original + with a translation into English. It's enough to certify the translation in the simplest form, a notary and apostille aren't needed. Administrative checks are fairly frequent: I was additionally asked for a list of travels and workplaces for the last 15 years, in the end the check lasted 1.5 months.»
community member · from public community chats
«If you were granted O-1, you don't actually know which criteria were credited to you and which weren't. 'Advertorial' articles really don't fit the claim of extraordinary ability, but if you mechanically hit 3 other criteria, then they just didn't pay attention to it.»
community member · from public community chats
«They also ask about the essence of the extraordinary ability. And they may doubt that the person really did and does what's written in the petition. If a person flounders in their own petition, then that's a reason for the officer to wonder whose extraordinary achievements are so nicely described in the petition.»
community member · from public community chats
Personal opinions of community members from public discussions, not legal advice.
Approval stories
What the officer actually did with this criterion
Across 155 of 259 real notices where this criterion appears, what the officer's own text did with it. In 43% he discussed the evidence that was filed; in 26% the criterion appeared only as recited regulation.
- engaged with the evidence43% · 66the officer wrote about the specific exhibits, not the criterion in general
- only recited the criterion26% · 41the regulation text with no discussion of what was filed
- questioned it20% · 31asked for more without deciding
- explicitly rejected it6% · 10
- explicitly accepted it3% · 5
- noted nothing was filed1% · 2
These are notices - petitions that already drew an RFE, a NOID or a denial - so none of this is an approval rate. It measures attention, not outcome: a criterion the officer usually only recites is one where more exhibits are unlikely to change the reading, and a criterion he argues with in detail is where the response has to do its work.
What people ask about this criterion
RFE on other criteria
Generalized from real community RFEs/denials (anonymized). Independent project, not affiliated with USCIS; not legal advice.