Published AAO appeal decisions

A chef was proposed for O-1 extraordinary ability in the arts classification by a property management business. The service center denied the petition for not meeting the arts criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the beneficiary had since become a lawful permanent resident.

A contemporary dance company sought O-1A extension for a principal dancer. The beneficiary trained at a university and held O-1 status with multiple prior extensions from 2007 to 2018. However, the visa is coded as O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics) when the decision concerns arts/dance, which falls under O-1B. This is a miscategorization in the input.

Dog handling company seeks O-1A classification for professional handler. Beneficiary established one criterion: awards. Membership and high salary criteria not met; other claimed criteria not analyzed. Petition also failed contract requirement. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidentiary criteria and missing employment contract.

A consumer audio company petitioned for O-1A classification for its founder and CEO with a Ph.D. in computer science. The AAO found only the judging criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the beneficiary lacked extraordinary ability in business or sciences without major award or three qualifying criteria.

Rhythmic gymnastics association petitioned for O-1A visa for a coaching beneficiary. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, and original contributions criteria. AAO found the unsigned letter insufficient for membership, no evidence of actual judging participation, and vague contribution descriptions, failing to meet three required criteria.

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.