Published AAO appeal decisions

A business executive sought O-1A classification through a technology company petitioner. On appeal the petitioner claimed three of eight criteria: published material, original contributions and critical capacity. The AAO dismissed the appeal because none was established, so the initial evidentiary requirement failed and the final merits were reserved.

University-sponsored global engagement coordinator claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner established two of eight alternate criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed to demonstrate three required criteria under published material and original contributions standards. Decision not reached on final merits assessment.

A company seeks O-1A classification for its financial vice president. The AAO found the beneficiary did not satisfy three required evidentiary criteria. Award evidence was not nationally or internationally recognized, membership and judging claims lacked comparability to regulatory standards, and the appeal was dismissed.

A company executive was the beneficiary of an O-1 extension petition filed by his employer in the business field. The director denied it over a suspended corporate status and a willful misrepresentation finding. The AAO withdrew the decision and remanded, because the director did not adequately consider the response to the notice of intent to deny.

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 employer petitioned for O-1A classification for a chief executive officer in culinary development. AAO affirmed revocation of initial approval, finding beneficiary failed to meet extraordinary ability criteria. Award lacked documentation of national or international recognition; business contributions did not demonstrate major significance.

A consumer audio company petitioned for O-1A classification for its founder and CEO with a Ph.D. in computer science. The AAO found only the judging criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the beneficiary lacked extraordinary ability in business or sciences without major award or three qualifying criteria.

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 model management agency petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The beneficiary met only one of eight criteria and did not satisfy comparable evidence provision. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient documentation of extraordinary ability.

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.

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.

A Florida corporation petitioned for an O-1 classification for a beneficiary claimed to have extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot after finding the company apparently dissolved, and the petitioner did not answer a notice requesting proof it still operates. No criteria were analyzed.

A business professional was proposed for O-1A classification as a person of extraordinary ability. The service center denied the petition, and the petitioner appealed. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because the beneficiary had since been granted asylum status, leaving no practical significance. No criteria were analyzed.

O-1A nonimmigrant petition for business field extraordinary ability. Petitioner failed to establish three required criteria on prior appeal and motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider dismissed for failure to meet regulatory requirements and incomplete record.

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.

Connecticut religious organization petitioned for O-1A beneficiary with extraordinary ability in business. The AAO affirmed denial because evidence failed to satisfy the published material criterion and petitioner did not establish eligibility under at least three required criteria.