Published AAO appeal decisions

A talent agency petitioned for O-1A classification for a stand-up comedian. The petitioner claimed lead performer status, national recognition, and commercial success. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required evidentiary criteria and dismissed the appeal without reaching the overall sustained acclaim analysis.

A skydiving center sought to employ a beneficiary as an O-1A nonimmigrant skydiving instructor. The beneficiary met only the awards criterion but failed to establish at least three required criteria overall; the appeal was dismissed because the petitioner could not satisfy the initial evidentiary threshold.

Beneficiary seeking EB-1A as athletic instruction school chief instructor and former competitor. AAO dismissed because beneficiary met only one of ten criteria (judging) when three required; lacks sustained recent national/international acclaim; record does not support extraordinary ability.

Fitness management company petitioned for O-1A classification for bodybuilder after initial approval was revoked. AAO dismissed appeal, affirming revocation because beneficiary met only awards criterion and lacked sufficient documentation of membership, publications, and legitimate high salary evidence.

A boutique pastry shop petitioned to classify its executive head pastry chef under O-1A extraordinary ability. The beneficiary claimed five criteria. The AAO found recommendation letters do not constitute required evidentiary forms, online publication does not meet major publication standard, and salary evidence was insufficient, dismissing the appeal.

Horse breeding business petitioned for stallion manager as O-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but AAO found only one met. Comparable evidence for awards criterion rejected because petitioner failed to show criterion does not apply to occupation. Appeal dismissed.

A speech-language pathologist with doctorate and academic experience seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. Decision held that two criteria met do not establish extraordinary ability; beneficiary's impact appeared limited to institutions where employed, lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required.