Published AAO appeal decisions

Producer of performing arts events in O-1B status sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner failed to establish three threshold evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding ABU award not major and publications not scholarly. Final merits determination was reserved because petitioner did not meet initial evidence threshold.

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.

Fencing club petitions for fencing master's O-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one of eight criteria met. Awards criterion failed because evidence showed students' achievements, not beneficiary's own. Judging criterion failed due to uncorroborated self-serving assertions. Appeal dismissed.

A marketing director for a luxury resort wear company sought extraordinary ability classification through employer petition. Claimant submitted five criteria but failed three regarding awards, publications, and critical role. AAO declined final merits review after finding insufficient initial evidence threshold satisfaction.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

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.

Tattoo studio petitioned for O-1A classification for tattoo artist beneficiary. AAO determined beneficiary met at least three evidentiary criteria despite SCOPS finding only two. Decision withdrawn and remanded for SCOPS to evaluate totality of evidence and determine whether beneficiary demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim in the arts.

Technology company petitioning for cofounder and CEO claiming extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. Required three of eight criteria; met only one. AAO held venture funding, Forbes membership, and website articles insufficient under O-1A requirements.

AI technology company petitioned for O-1A classification of chief technology officer. Beneficiary met only one criterion (judging); awards, membership, and published material criteria were not satisfied. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary could not meet minimum three criteria requirement for extraordinary ability.

Video game developer petitioned for senior animator as extraordinary ability in arts. SCOPS found beneficiary met one criterion (judging); AAO dismissed, holding beneficiary met only judging criterion and failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or elite status.

A company seeks O-1A classification for its financial vice president. The AAO found the beneficiary did not satisfy three required evidentiary criteria. Award evidence was not nationally or internationally recognized, membership and judging claims lacked comparability to regulatory standards, and the appeal was dismissed.

Dance choreographer sponsored by dance studio for O-1A visa. Claimed significant awards and multiple evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized award and failure to meet at least three alternative criteria required for extraordinary ability.

A gaming electronics company sought extraordinary ability classification for a foreign game design lead, claiming five criteria. The AAO found two criteria met (leading role and high salary) but rejected awards and published material claims and found insufficient sustained individual acclaim, dismissing the appeal for failing the three-criterion threshold.

Financial technology company petitions for beneficiary in fintech as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed six criteria; director found two met. AAO finds three criteria satisfied: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles via comparable evidence of trade show presentations. Matter remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim.

Software engineer in Canada employed by Twilio met two of four claimed criteria but not three required. AAO rejected awards claim, rejected comparable evidence argument for awards, rejected salary claim with new evidence, and dismissed without final merits review.