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 talent agency petitioned for a hip-hop/street jazz dancer and instructor for O-1A classification. The agency claimed an award, lead roles in productions, and published material about the beneficiary. The AAO found the award lacked national or international prominence, the dancer was one of several performers rather than lead, and articles did not establish distinguished roles, dismissing the appeal.

A car restoration company sponsored a Brazilian restoration designer and fabricator for O-1A visa. Director found one criterion met (significant recognition). Petitioner claimed five others on appeal. AAO found none met: no evidence of future lead role, no national recognition in major publications, no commercial success, and prospective salary not demonstrably high for the field.

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 video production and advertising company petitioned for O-1A classification for a director of videography and producer. AAO dismissed appeal, finding beneficiary failed to meet evidentiary criteria: awards were employer's not beneficiary's; future distinguished employment not established; published material and salary evidence insufficient.

A ballet company petitioned for O-1A classification for a principal dancer. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary met at least three of six regulatory criteria through awards, publications, and critical roles. The AAO held none were satisfied: awards were limited to student-age competitors, no major publications documented the beneficiary, and past roles were student performances rather than professional lead roles. Appeal dismissed.

Actor in motion picture and television sponsored by talent agency for O-1 classification. Agency met only one of six regulatory criteria; decision found petitioner did not establish roles with distinguished reputation or organizations and did not satisfy three-criterion threshold required for extraordinary achievement in film and television.

An agent petitions for a professional photographer from Argentina seeking O-1A classification. Petitioner presented articles, testimonials, and work history as photographer. AAO found evidence failed to satisfy required evidentiary criteria: no significant award, no published recognition of individual achievements, no demonstrated lead role at distinguished organizations.

An agent sought O-1A classification for an actor beneficiary. The beneficiary satisfied only one of six required criteria; the decision found insufficient evidence of future leading roles and failed to provide required consultation from a peer group in performing arts, resulting in dismissal.

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.