Published AAO appeal decisions

A Chinese language teacher at a private high school sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability in education. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary met two of eight evidentiary criteria through awards and professional memberships. The AAO found neither criterion satisfied because the awards lacked national or international recognition and the associations did not require outstanding achievement for membership.

A television production company petitioned for O-1 classification for a television host and producer. The company failed to submit required written consultations from an appropriate labor union and management organization despite two requests for evidence and six weeks to respond. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the consultation requirement was not satisfied, leaving extraordinary ability criteria unanalyzed.

A taekwondo school sought O-1 extension for an athlete-turned-instructor. The AAO found beneficiary satisfied none of eight evidentiary criteria: awards lacked proper translation and recognition, membership reflected experience not achievement, published material was incomplete, and judging duties were administrative. The AAO dismissed the appeal.

A music production studio petitioned for a composer under O-1, first framed as extraordinary achievement in motion pictures and television, then claimed on appeal as extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal because three criteria were not met and the required management organization consultation was missing.

Animation designer sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification for nonimmigrant employment extension. Petitioner claimed significant awards and alternative criteria but AAO found awards insufficiently documented and lacked national/international significance. Insufficient documentation of distinguished productions or other required criteria. Appeal dismissed.

A fashion model agency petitioned for a model under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. The approved petition was revoked after a support letter proved falsified. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the agency did not resolve the misrepresentation finding, and noted an itinerary concern. This is the arts category, not O-1A.

Employer petitioned for pattern maker and fashion designer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the service center's denial decision.

A symphony orchestra petitioned to employ a pianist as O-1A nonimmigrant. The petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, lead performer status, published recognition, and commercial success. The AAO found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a significant national or international award and satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria, dismissing the appeal.

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.

An equestrian farm petitioned for O-1 classification of an athlete beneficiary in athletics. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the filer submitted only a general statement and no promised brief or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify a specific legal or factual error.

A talent agency petitioned for a hip-hop/street jazz dancer and instructor for O-1A classification. The agency claimed an award, lead roles in productions, and published material about the beneficiary. The AAO found the award lacked national or international prominence, the dancer was one of several performers rather than lead, and articles did not establish distinguished roles, dismissing the appeal.

A car restoration company sponsored a Brazilian restoration designer and fabricator for O-1A visa. Director found one criterion met (significant recognition). Petitioner claimed five others on appeal. AAO found none met: no evidence of future lead role, no national recognition in major publications, no commercial success, and prospective salary not demonstrably high for the field.

A dance studio sought O-2 classification for an individual accompanying a competitive ballroom dancer whose concurrent O-1 petition was filed. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the O-1 petition had been denied and its appeal dismissed, leaving no O-1 individual to support, so the O-2 petition could not be approved.

A thoroughbred training and racing proprietor filed a petition for an internationally recognized athlete under the P-1A classification. The director denied it. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner never identified a specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact and submitted no promised brief or evidence.

A youth soccer academy petitions for O-1A classification for an experienced soccer coach. The academy claimed five criteria but satisfied none. The AAO upheld dismissal because the beneficiary failed to meet the threshold of at least three criteria through proper initial evidence.