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.

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.

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.

Production company sought O-1A classification for actor in motion pictures and television. Visa category is O-1B (arts/entertainment), not O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics). Decision indicates O-1 classification but actor achievement in film falls outside O-1A scope. Classified as ineligible for stated visa category.