Published AAO appeal decisions

Circus entertainment business petitions for circus performer with prior O-1 status. Service center denied finding he lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact and did not submit promised brief or additional evidence within required timeframe.

Martial arts academy petitioned for taekwondo instructor under O-1A. Director found beneficiary lacks sustained national or international acclaim and failed at least three of eight evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed, holding beneficiary is skilled athlete but did not establish extraordinary ability as coach.

A talent management business sought O-1 classification for a singer and performer in the arts, which is not O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of extraordinary ability evidence and missing contracts and itinerary. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified and no promised brief was filed.

A company sought to employ its managing director, who was its sole member, under O-1 classification. The director recommended denial as an impermissible self-petition and certified the decision. The AAO did not reach the merits, because the beneficiary had since become a permanent resident, and denied the petition as moot.

Gymnastics club petitioned for O-1A visa for foreign gymnastics coach. AAO held beneficiary lacked major internationally recognized award and failed to satisfy at least three evidentiary criteria; prior athletic acclaim insufficient without demonstrating sustained coaching-level extraordinary ability.

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.

An artist and businessperson sought EB-1A classification claiming multiple criteria. The AAO found published material insufficient, newspaper not major media, and original contributions lacking demonstrated major significance. Three criteria met not established.

Employer-sponsored petition for mechanical engineer to obtain EB-1A extraordinary ability classification was appealed. Petitioner did not establish one-time achievement or three of ten criteria. Published material criterion not met due to insufficient documentation. No comparable evidence permitted for this occupation.

An athlete and coach sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found the awards criterion not met because achievements lacked documentation as nationally or internationally recognized honors. The petitioner did not satisfy at least three criteria. The appeal was dismissed as petitioner failed to establish eligibility.

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.

Employer sponsored sound engineer for extraordinary ability EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria but failed threshold requirement. AAO rejected argument that O-1 nonimmigrant visa approvals constituted comparable evidence, as O-1 uses lower distinction standard.