When an EB-1A salary claim includes a bonus, check the comparison before the math.
A base salary can look ordinary in one dataset while a guaranteed or recurring bonus changes the total. That does not make either number the right EB-1A comparison on its own. The question for a second reviewer is whether the petition proves the remuneration and compares it with people in the field on a like-for-like basis.
The regulation asks for evidence that the person has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. It does not prescribe a universal percentile. USCIS considers the occupation, location, and the measure used by a compensation survey when deciding whether a comparison is sound. Counsel should verify the current sources and decide the legal theory. See 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(ix) and the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2.
Make two separate rows before drafting the argument
Row one is what this person actually received or credibly commanded. Break out base pay, cash bonus, equity, and any other remuneration by period. For each component, attach the offer or plan terms, pay records, tax documents, vesting records, or employer confirmation that proves the amount and timing. Label a promised future amount as future, not paid. If a bonus is described as guaranteed, show the contract language and the years in which it was paid.
Row two is the comparison set. Record the survey source, publication date, occupation and duties, seniority, location, population, and what its number includes. A base-wage statistic may be useful for a base-wage comparison. It cannot silently become a total-compensation benchmark. If the petition adds bonus or equity to the person’s numerator, the reviewer must ask what the comparator includes and whether a different source is needed.
The five-minute hostile read
- Trace the numerator. Can an associate reproduce each annual figure from the cited records? Are cash, vested equity, and prospective amounts distinguished?
- Trace the denominator. Does the benchmark measure base pay, wages, or total remuneration? Does it cover the same kind of work and a defensible labor market?
- Inspect the date. Does the compensation period line up with the survey period? If it does not, has counsel explained the mismatch rather than burying it?
- Check both stories. If base pay and total compensation lead to different conclusions, show the difference plainly. A weaker base comparison is not repaired by hiding it.
- Separate the legal conclusion. The review memo should list facts, exhibits, gaps, and questions. Counsel decides whether the criterion is met and how the record fits the case as a whole.
An AAO decision discussing salary comparisons illustrates why survey occupation, rate measured, location, and validity matter. It is an example of analysis, not a promise about another petition’s result.
ExtraordinaryOS’s EB-1A Petition Second Review kit turns this check into a claim-to-exhibit log and issue memo for counsel. The $199 kit is a downloadable workflow for a draft the firm already wrote. ExtraordinaryOS does not receive client files. The firm controls its AI setup and data handling, and the lawyer retains every legal decision. Start with a fictional or anonymized file; email us for help with the workflow, without sending client material.
This page is educational only. It is not legal advice.