Published AAO appeal decisions

Music agent petitions for pianist beneficiary for O-1A extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary did not meet initial evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate two claimed criteria and did not qualify for comparable evidence consideration.

An agent petitioned for a master automotive technician and test driver for O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The beneficiary met only the awards criterion. Published material criterion was withdrawn because foreign articles were not shown to be in major media. Judging criterion was withdrawn due to insufficient corroboration. With only one criterion met, the three-criterion threshold was not satisfied.

Fitness company petitioned for bodybuilder beneficiary as O-1A extraordinary ability. Director denied on contract sufficiency and failure to meet three of eight criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding serious errors and discrepancies in employment contract, including two contracts for same period and unresolved inconsistencies, made appeal dispositive without reaching other grounds.

Chef beneficiary seeking O-1A nonimmigrant classification for extraordinary ability. Did not receive significant awards, did not demonstrate lead or starring role in distinguished productions, lacked published recognition, and did not show high salary relative to field. Appeal dismissed.

A soccer camp petitions for O-1A for a beneficiary transitioning from professional soccer player to coach. The AAO remanded because the Director improperly excluded athletic achievements in assessing extraordinary ability and erred in rejecting the gold medal as major award without requesting additional evidence on coaching eligibility.

A heating oil company petitioned for a radio announcer and marketing manager under O-1. The petition was amended during processing from the business category to the arts category, so it is O-1B rather than O-1A. The AAO found the published-material criterion unmet, so the three-criteria threshold failed and the appeal was dismissed.

A sports management company petitioned for a sumo wrestler seeking O-1A extraordinary ability. The applicant met only the awards criterion. Claims of membership in elite associations and published media coverage failed because the federation membership lacked documented outstanding achievement requirements and articles lacked proper attribution. Fewer than three criteria were satisfied so appeal was dismissed.

An engineering company sponsored a thermofluidic and bridge erosion researcher for O-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner submitted evidence for four criteria but satisfied only scholarly articles. The AAO found the beneficiary's published work lacked demonstration of major significance; diverse skillset alone does not constitute original contributions of requisite magnitude. Appeal dismissed.