Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

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.

A scientist in the field of international development seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria and established two: original contributions and scholarly articles. The decision found only two criteria satisfied; at least three are required. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the top of the field.

O-1A petition dismissed on appeal. Beneficiary's field of endeavor not articulated by petitioner. Decision emphasizes petitioner failed to identify specific field and did not meet evidentiary thresholds for extraordinary ability classification.

A horse trainer sought O-1A classification in the arts. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the beneficiary's work training cutting horses falls under athletics or business, not the arts as claimed. The petition was filed under the wrong visa category and no evidence was submitted for the correct criteria.

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.

O-1A petition dismissed due to procedural defect: petitioner signed certification on supplemental form but AAO notes self-petitioning is prohibited under O-1 regulations and petitioner failed to provide valid signature on Form I-129 Part 7. No substantive analysis of extraordinary ability criteria reached.

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.

A law office sought to employ an accountant as an H-1B specialty occupation worker, not O-1A. The director denied the petition. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the position resembled a bookkeeping or accounting clerk role that does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, and no specialty occupation criterion was satisfied.

An accountant position offered by a merchandise wholesaler was filed as an H-1B specialty occupation petition, not an extraordinary ability petition. The employer argued the job requires a bachelor's degree in accounting. The appeal was dismissed because the duties were described generally and none of the four specialty occupation criteria was shown.

A newly formed company sought to employ a chief financial officer for a planned retail food store, classified as a specialty occupation worker under the H-1B category. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the duties and the start-up's circumstances did not show the position required a specific bachelor's degree. This is not an O-1A matter.

A staffing company sought to employ a respiratory therapist under the H-1B specialty occupation classification, not O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of required state licensure. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no license and no showing that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any criterion.

A corporation filed for H-1B extension of a systems analyst beneficiary. The AAO upheld dismissal because the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary would actually perform specialty occupation duties or that the petitioner was the beneficiary's agent; this was H-1B, not O-1A.

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 self-represented individual sought special immigrant classification as a battered spouse of a U.S. citizen, not an O-1A visa. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she did not establish that she suffered battery or extreme cruelty or that she has good moral character, lacking supporting documentation.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification of an endocrinologist for temporary three-year employment. The AAO held the beneficiary met only the membership criterion but failed to establish three criteria overall and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A self-represented individual filed a self-petition as the battered spouse of a U.S. citizen, not an O-1A petition. The director denied it for lack of proof of abuse and good moral character. The AAO dismissed the appeal because unsupported statements and missing police clearances failed to meet the burden of proof.

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.

A photography consultant sought O-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center director's denial, and no further documentation was submitted despite notice of opportunity to do so.