Published AAO appeal decisions

Artistic director and drama teacher seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple criteria but established only one. Director found insufficient evidence of lead roles in distinguished productions and inadequate testimonials from recognized experts. Appeal dismissed as beneficiary did not meet minimum three-criterion requirement.

Senior iOS developer petitioned by software firm for O-1A visa. Petitioner claimed awards, membership in business organizations, judging, and high salary, but AAO found the submitted award lacked objective criteria and field recognition, membership failed to meet standards, and new claims on appeal were procedurally barred. Appeal dismissed.

Squash professional petitioned by club for O-1A visa. Service center denied for failing to meet evidentiary criteria. Petitioner's appeal dismissed summarily for lack of specificity. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner provided no new facts or evidence, and appellant brief was not properly filed with AAO.

A business petitioned for O-1A status for a physiotherapist, and the director denied it for failing the initial evidentiary requirements. On appeal, the AAO found the matter moot because another petition for the same worker had since been approved, so it did not reach the merits and dismissed the appeal.

Investment firm petitions for O-1A classification for external managers evaluation specialist. Petitioner failed to submit required advisory opinion and satisfied only two of eight evidentiary criteria. Missing published material documentation and failing to establish three alternate criteria, petition dismissed.

A software and investment firm sought O-1 classification for an investment and marketing specialist. After a summary dismissal of the appeal, the firm filed untimely combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The AAO found the delay was not reasonable or beyond the firm's control and dismissed both motions without reaching the merits.

Restaurant petitioned for executive chef's O-1A classification. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, holding petitioner failed to raise new legal or factual grounds and repeated prior arguments without addressing erroneous application of law.

Dance studio petitioned for dance instructor beneficiary for O-1A classification. Service center found one criterion met. AAO affirmed that beneficiary met only one criterion and rejected original contributions claim based on lack of evidence of major significance. Petition dismissed as beneficiary failed to satisfy three-criterion requirement.

A tennis training center petitioned for a tennis coach under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not provide a valid contract or summary of an oral agreement, since the submitted agreement was undated and unsigned by the beneficiary. The remaining grounds of denial were not reached.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification for executive chef of extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to demonstrate nomination for significant awards or at least three of six regulatory criteria; evidence of participation in distinguished productions and published recognition was insufficient.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification of executive chef claiming extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to establish any of the required evidentiary criteria, with evidence containing credibility and consistency issues.