A cybersecurity firm sponsored a beneficiary software engineer. Director initially found three criteria met (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but final merits analysis found no sustained acclaim. Petitioner filed motion to reopen; Director dismissed motions. AAO affirmed dismissal on procedural grounds without reaching underlying petition merits.

A tattoo arts studio petitioned for O-1A classification for a tattoo artist. The petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through a 2022 award and lead performances at multiple events. The AAO found the award lacked standing and that participation in events did not demonstrate starring or lead roles, dismissing the appeal.

A video production and advertising company petitioned for O-1A classification for a director of videography and producer. AAO dismissed appeal, finding beneficiary failed to meet evidentiary criteria: awards were employer's not beneficiary's; future distinguished employment not established; published material and salary evidence insufficient.

A college television station petitioned for a cinematographer and broadcast associate as an artist of extraordinary ability. The appeals office found two criteria satisfied, exhibitions and critical role, and withdrew the director's judging finding. Awards, published material and original contributions failed, so the minimum of three was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.