Published AAO appeal decisions

An entertainment agent petitioned for a musician and composer under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. This is O-1B, not O-1A. After a denial and a dismissed appeal, the agent moved to reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion because no incorrect application of law or policy was shown.

A music agent petitioned for a jazz pianist under the O-1 category for extraordinary ability in the arts. The director denied the petition, finding none of four claimed criteria met. The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not satisfy three of six criteria. This is an arts case, outside O-1A.

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.

A car restoration company sponsored a Brazilian restoration designer and fabricator for O-1A visa. Director found one criterion met (significant recognition). Petitioner claimed five others on appeal. AAO found none met: no evidence of future lead role, no national recognition in major publications, no commercial success, and prospective salary not demonstrably high for the field.

An art studio/gallery petitioned for an artist beneficiary for O-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary was neither nominated for nor received a qualifying award, and satisfied fewer than three of the six required criteria, failing to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the arts.

A fencing club petitioned for a fencing coach's O-1A classification. The beneficiary claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing awards, coaching accomplishments, and refereeing experience. The AAO found only the judging criterion met; awards predated his coaching career and student achievements did not satisfy his own recognition requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A yacht management company petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The AAO found beneficiary met only one evidentiary criterion and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability required.

An equestrian rider sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner submitted ribbons and claimed membership but failed to establish three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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.

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.