Published AAO appeal decisions

A restaurant petitioned to classify a mixologist as O-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner initially claimed O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics) but later argued mixology is O-1B (arts). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petition was filed under O-1A, which does not cover arts; the petitioner cannot change classifications mid-process and must satisfy the category claimed at filing.

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 bakery and pastry chef sought EB-2 national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed, finding the proposed bakery operation lacked national importance required under Dhanasar. The endeavor would benefit only direct customers without broader implications or significant employment impact on a national level.

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 Decision withdrawn and remanded for SCOPS to evaluate totality of evidence and determine whether beneficiary demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim in the arts.

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.

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.