Published AAO appeal decisions

Boxing and fitness facility petitioned for professional boxer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary did not satisfy initial evidentiary requirements, meeting none of eight regulatory criteria; evidence showed skill but not sustained national or international acclaim required for O-1A.

A film and television producer was the beneficiary of an O-1 petition filed by a production company. The director revoked approval for lack of extraordinary achievement. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded it so the director could consider the evidence submitted in response to the notice of intent and the petitioner's apparent dissolution.

A business seeking O-1A classification for a horse trainer and groom for the cutting horse industry. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's duties fall under athletics, not the arts, and therefore the wrong visa category was requested. No O-1A criteria were analyzed on the merits.

A marketing manager specializing in search engine optimization was proposed by a company for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filing named no specific error of law or fact and the promised brief or evidence never arrived.

A horse trainer sought O-1A classification in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's work training cutting horses falls under athletics or business, not the arts as claimed. The petition was filed under the wrong visa category and no evidence was submitted for the correct criteria.

Marketing manager petitioned by employer for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner claimed two regulatory criteria and comparable evidence under letters of recommendation. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria but required three; comparable evidence unavailable because petitioner failed to show criteria do not readily apply to occupation.

A law office sought to employ an accountant as an H-1B specialty occupation worker, not O-1A. The director denied the petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the position resembled a bookkeeping or accounting clerk role that does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, and no specialty occupation criterion was satisfied.

An accountant position offered by a merchandise wholesaler was filed as an H-1B specialty occupation petition, not an extraordinary ability petition. The employer argued the job requires a bachelor's degree in accounting. The appeal was dismissed because the duties were described generally and none of the four specialty occupation criteria was shown.

A newly formed company sought to employ a chief financial officer for a planned retail food store, classified as a specialty occupation worker under the H-1B category. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the duties and the start-up's circumstances did not show the position required a specific bachelor's degree. This is not an O-1A matter.

A staffing company sought to employ a respiratory therapist under the H-1B specialty occupation classification, not O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of required state licensure. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no license and no showing that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any criterion.

A corporation filed for H-1B extension of a systems analyst beneficiary. The AAO upheld dismissal because the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary would actually perform specialty occupation duties or that the petitioner was the beneficiary's agent; this was H-1B, not O-1A.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification of an endocrinologist for temporary three-year employment. The AAO held the beneficiary met only the membership criterion but failed to establish three criteria overall and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A marketing company sponsored a professional body boarder for O-1A nonimmigrant classification. Service center director denied finding beneficiary lacked sustained acclaim and top-tier standing required. On appeal, petitioner failed to specifically address grounds for denial. Appeal summarily dismissed.