An athlete management business sought to extend O-2 status for two support workers accompanying a professional athlete holding O-1 status, working as content creators and media strategists. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the record did not show substantial experience with critical skills integral to the athlete's performance, and credibility concerns arose.

A tennis academy petitioned for O-1A classification for a tennis coach. The coach competed in junior and men's circuits and taught tennis. AAO affirmed denial, finding the beneficiary met only two of eight criteria (employment in critical capacity and one other), failing to meet the required three. Membership, published materials, and original contributions were not sufficiently documented.

The beneficiary was an accompanying worker to an assistant horse trainer, sought under the O-2 classification rather than O-1A. The petitioner appealed the denial. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the related O-1 petition had been denied, so no O-1 alien existed for the beneficiary to support.

A boxing gym petitioned for an O-1A visa for a boxer claiming extraordinary ability in athletics. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to provide required written advisory opinion consultation and did not demonstrate three of eight evidentiary criteria, with evidence also deficient in translations.