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 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 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 ballet company petitioned for O-1A classification for a principal dancer. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary met at least three of six regulatory criteria through awards, publications, and critical roles. The AAO held none were satisfied: awards were limited to student-age competitors, no major publications documented the beneficiary, and past roles were student performances rather than professional lead roles. Appeal dismissed.