Published AAO appeal decisions

Boxing and fitness facility petitioned for professional boxer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary did not satisfy initial evidentiary requirements, meeting none of eight regulatory criteria; evidence showed skill but not sustained national or international acclaim required for O-1A.

A professional bodybuilder did not meet the initial evidence requirements for O-1A classification. The petitioner satisfied only two of eight criteria and failed to establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

A business seeking O-1A classification for a horse trainer and groom for the cutting horse industry. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's duties fall under athletics, not the arts, and therefore the wrong visa category was requested. No O-1A criteria were analyzed on the merits.

Wrestling coach seeking O-1A nonimmigrant classification. Petitioner did not establish three evidentiary criteria or sustained national/international acclaim. Petition failed procedural requirement of detailed work itinerary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no demonstration of extraordinary ability.

Horse racing trainer sought O-1A classification as an artist, but AAO determined the occupation (race horse training and business operation) falls within business or athletics, not the arts. Petitioner self-petitioned, which is impermissible for O-1A. Appeal dismissed on multiple independent grounds.

A competitive ballroom dancer was proposed for O-1 classification as a person of extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO found the field is really athletics, so the arts classification was wrong. It also found the arts criteria unmet and no evidence of dance instruction ability. The text provided has no ORDER line.

The beneficiary was an accompanying worker to an assistant horse trainer, sought under the O-2 classification rather than O-1A. The petitioner appealed the denial. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the related O-1 petition had been denied, so no O-1 alien existed for the beneficiary to support.

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.

Taekwondo instructor beneficiary sought O-1A nonimmigrant visa for extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, association membership, and judging experience. AAO dismissed, finding awards were regional not national, membership claim unsubstantiated, and judging criterion unmet; fewer than three criteria satisfied.

A marketing company sponsored a professional body boarder for O-1A nonimmigrant classification. Service center director denied finding beneficiary lacked sustained acclaim and top-tier standing required. On appeal, petitioner failed to specifically address grounds for denial. Appeal summarily dismissed.