Published AAO appeal decisions

A talent agency petitioned for O-1A classification for a stand-up comedian. The petitioner claimed lead performer status, national recognition, and commercial success. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required evidentiary criteria and dismissed the appeal without reaching the overall sustained acclaim analysis.

Fitness management company petitioned for O-1A classification for bodybuilder after initial approval was revoked. AAO dismissed appeal, affirming revocation because beneficiary met only awards criterion and lacked sufficient documentation of membership, publications, and legitimate high salary evidence.

A boutique pastry shop petitioned to classify its executive head pastry chef under O-1A extraordinary ability. The beneficiary claimed five criteria. The AAO found recommendation letters do not constitute required evidentiary forms, online publication does not meet major publication standard, and salary evidence was insufficient, dismissing the appeal.

Horse breeding business petitioned for stallion manager as O-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but AAO found only one met. Comparable evidence for awards criterion rejected because petitioner failed to show criterion does not apply to occupation. Appeal dismissed.

Martial arts studio petitioned for instructor beneficiary for O-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Beneficiary met only one of three required initial criteria and could not establish sustained national or international acclaim; appeal dismissed.

Media production agency petitioned for O-1A classification for senior vice president of production finance. AAO dismissed motions, finding only one criterion met and insufficient documentation of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.

An artist agent, who is also a professor of studio arts, petitioned for a fine artist under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. This is O-1B, not O-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not satisfy three of the alternative regulatory criteria.