Published AAO appeal decisions

An equestrian farm petitioned for O-1 classification of an athlete beneficiary in athletics. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the filer submitted only a general statement and no promised brief or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify a specific legal or factual error.

A dance studio sought O-2 classification for an individual accompanying a competitive ballroom dancer whose concurrent O-1 petition was filed. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the O-1 petition had been denied and its appeal dismissed, leaving no O-1 individual to support, so the O-2 petition could not be approved.

A thoroughbred training and racing proprietor filed a petition for an internationally recognized athlete under the P-1A classification. The director denied it. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner never identified a specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact and submitted no promised brief or evidence.

A youth soccer academy petitions for O-1A classification for an experienced soccer coach. The academy claimed five criteria but satisfied none. The AAO upheld dismissal because the beneficiary failed to meet the threshold of at least three criteria through proper initial evidence.

Show horse stable petitioned for trainer classified as extraordinary ability in athletics. Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and submitted comparable evidence under regulatory alternative. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria and comparable evidence was insufficient.

A ballroom dance instructor and competitive athlete from Ukraine seeks O-1A classification. Only satisfied one of eight evidentiary criteria: judging. Awards lacked documented national recognition, membership requirements undemanding, published material regional not major, and salary not elevated. Decision held insufficient evidence to establish extraordinary ability.