Pole dance instructor and performer petitioned for O-1A classification through talent agency. AAO held beneficiary did not meet evidentiary criteria: competition awards lacked significance in field, no published material in major media, and prior performances did not constitute lead roles in distinguished events with established reputations.

A dance studio sought O-1 arts classification for a competitive ballroom dancer who would compete and teach. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It found the field is athletics, so the arts classification was wrong. It also found the arts evidentiary criteria unmet and no showing that instruction falls within his area of ability.

A contemporary dance company sought O-1A extension for a principal dancer. The beneficiary trained at a university and held O-1 status with multiple prior extensions from 2007 to 2018. However, the visa is coded as O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics) when the decision concerns arts/dance, which falls under O-1B. This is a miscategorization in the input.

A dance studio sought O-1 classification for a competitive dancer, choreographer and coach under the arts standard. The AAO found the work was athletic, not artistic, and that the evidence met only one of the arts criteria. This is an O-1B arts-standard filing, so the appeal was dismissed.