Published AAO appeal decisions

An actress sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The petitioner (production company) filed a third motion to reconsider after two prior dismissals, resubmitting identical arguments and evidence without demonstrating legal or policy errors in prior decisions. The AAO dismissed the motion because the petitioner failed to meet the procedural requirement of showing proper cause under applicable regulations.

A petitioner sought O-1A classification for a beneficiary writer, academic, curator, and poet. The AAO dismissed the appeal based on waived procedural issues: insufficient contract, failure to demonstrate events and activities, unmet advisory opinion requirement, and non-compliance with initial evidence thresholds.

Filmmaker with MFA in film directing sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (film festival screenings). AAO affirmed denial: petitioner did not establish three required criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

A cricket official and administrator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed four evidentiary criteria including membership, judging, published material, and critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met zero criteria; membership and judging claims failed, and other claimed criteria were not reached.

An artist agent, who is also a professor of studio arts, petitioned for a fine artist under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. This is O-1B, not O-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not satisfy three of the alternative regulatory criteria.