A theater group petitioned for a scenic and projection designer under O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. The service center denied the petition. On appeal, the AAO found the matter moot because another petitioner's O-1 petition was approved, and dismissed the appeal as abandoned after no response to its notice.

Model sought O-1 extraordinary ability classification. California Service Center denied petition on four grounds including petitioner qualification as U.S. agent and advisory opinion requirement. Petitioner waived two grounds on appeal. AAO dismissed appeal based on uncontested grounds including agent qualification and advisory opinion requirements.

A company executive was the beneficiary of an O-1 extension petition filed by his employer in the business field. The director denied it over a suspended corporate status and a willful misrepresentation finding. The AAO withdrew the decision and remanded, because the director did not adequately consider the response to the notice of intent to deny.

This is an O-2 decision, not O-1A. The decision concerns whether a beneficiary seeking O-2 status as an accompanying individual to an O-1 artist met the requirement of entering solely to assist the O-1. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the beneficiary worked independently and did not establish the exclusive accompanying purpose required.