Published AAO appeal decisions

A taekwondo school sought to extend O-1A classification for an athletic trainer with prior approvals. The AAO dismissed a motion to reconsider, holding that prior extensions do not bind current decisions and the beneficiary failed to demonstrate three of eight required criteria or a major internationally recognized award.

Badminton coach employed by training center sought O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in athletics via membership and published material criteria. AAO found membership requirements did not mandate outstanding achievements and publications were not about the beneficiary.

Non-profit Nordic ski club petitioned to classify assistant ski coach as O-1A nonimmigrant of extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO dismissed because beneficiary failed to meet the required minimum three of eight alternate evidentiary criteria. Awards evidence lacked documentation of national or international recognition; further criteria not analyzed due to failure at threshold.

A theater group petitioned for a scenic and projection designer under O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. The service center denied the petition. On appeal, the AAO found the matter moot because another petitioner's O-1 petition was approved, and dismissed the appeal as abandoned after no response to its notice.

An architectural designer employed by a real estate development company sought O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria but only met two. AAO found published materials insufficient, lead role claim unsupported by evidence that beneficiary merely interned, and testimonials from colleagues lacked demonstrated recognition outside that circle. Appeal dismissed.

Soccer academy petitioned for soccer coach as O-1A nonimmigrant athlete of extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal; beneficiary failed to meet any of eight evidentiary criteria, missing major award or three qualifying forms of documentation.

A maritime data scientist seeking O-1A classification through an employer (high-tech data analytics company) met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance in the field.

Film production company petitioned for storyboard artist with O-1A extraordinary ability visa. Petitioner claimed at least three evidentiary criteria met but AAO found evidence satisfied fewer than three required criteria: no significant award, no lead role in distinguished productions, insufficient published material recognition.

Biomedical technology company petitions for senior research specialist in cancer research for O-1A visa. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance criterion. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.