Published AAO appeal decisions

A confectionary bakery chef, sponsored by a pastry restaurant, sought nonimmigrant classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The decision treats the matter as arts-based (O-1B style) and the appeal was dismissed because the petitioner never tied the submitted documents to any regulatory criterion.

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.

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

Actor and production crew member petitioned for O-1B (MPTV) nonimmigrant classification by an agent. Petitioner claimed eligibility under O-1B (MPTV) criteria but failed to meet evidentiary requirements. On appeal, petitioner attempted to switch to O-1B (Arts) classification, which was improper because the beneficiary intended to perform services in motion picture and television industry.

A restaurant petitioned for an executive chef's O-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds: signature discrepancies on Form G-28 and Form I-290B prevented recognition of counsel and the appeal itself, rendering the merits unreachable.

Fencing club petitions for fencing master's O-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one of eight criteria met. Awards criterion failed because evidence showed students' achievements, not beneficiary's own. Judging criterion failed due to uncorroborated self-serving assertions. Appeal dismissed.

A restaurant petitioned to classify a mixologist as O-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner initially claimed O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics) but later argued mixology is O-1B (arts). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petition was filed under O-1A, which does not cover arts; the petitioner cannot change classifications mid-process and must satisfy the category claimed at filing.

Archaeology business petitions for O-1 visa for archaeologist beneficiary. Appeal dismissed on consultation requirement grounds: Turkish-American organization consulted lacked demonstrated expertise in archaeology or archaeology business. Merits regarding evidentiary criteria reserved and not decided.

A tattoo arts studio petitioned for O-1A classification for a tattoo artist. The petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through a 2022 award and lead performances at multiple events. The AAO found the award lacked standing and that participation in events did not demonstrate starring or lead roles, dismissing the appeal.

Technology company petitioning for cofounder and CEO claiming extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. Required three of eight criteria; met only one. AAO held venture funding, Forbes membership, and website articles insufficient under O-1A requirements.

AI technology company petitioned for O-1A classification of chief technology officer. Beneficiary met only one criterion (judging); awards, membership, and published material criteria were not satisfied. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary could not meet minimum three criteria requirement for extraordinary ability.

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.

Dance choreographer sponsored by dance studio for O-1A visa. Claimed significant awards and multiple evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized award and failure to meet at least three alternative criteria required for extraordinary ability.

Artistic director and drama teacher seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple criteria but established only one. Director found insufficient evidence of lead roles in distinguished productions and inadequate testimonials from recognized experts. Appeal dismissed as beneficiary did not meet minimum three-criterion requirement.

Senior iOS developer petitioned by software firm for O-1A visa. Petitioner claimed awards, membership in business organizations, judging, and high salary, but AAO found the submitted award lacked objective criteria and field recognition, membership failed to meet standards, and new claims on appeal were procedurally barred. Appeal dismissed.

Squash professional petitioned by club for O-1A visa. Service center denied for failing to meet evidentiary criteria. Petitioner's appeal dismissed summarily for lack of specificity. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner provided no new facts or evidence, and appellant brief was not properly filed with AAO.

The beneficiary is a boxer and trainer for whom an agent sought O-1A classification. The petitioner claimed membership, original contributions through comparable evidence, and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because membership and contributions were not established, so three criteria were not satisfied, and it reserved the final merits.

A business petitioned for O-1A status for a physiotherapist, and the director denied it for failing the initial evidentiary requirements. On appeal, the AAO found the matter moot because another petition for the same worker had since been approved, so it did not reach the merits and dismissed the appeal.

Investment firm petitions for O-1A classification for external managers evaluation specialist. Petitioner failed to submit required advisory opinion and satisfied only two of eight evidentiary criteria. Missing published material documentation and failing to establish three alternate criteria, petition dismissed.