Published AAO appeal decisions

An outpatient mental health clinic sought O-1A extension for a psychotherapist. The decision notes the beneficiary works in psychotherapy and mental health, which is not listed in the O-1A regulatory categories (sciences, education, business, athletics). This appears to be O-1B or an inappropriate O-1A classification. The visa category attribute conflicts with the field.

Production company petitions for stage manager for O-1A visa in arts. Director found no significant national or international award and no satisfaction of any of six evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability and inadequate event itinerary.

Jiu jitsu academy petitions for beneficiary as athletic competitor and instructor under O-1A. Beneficiary claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria. AAO dismissed, finding no major international award, fewer than three evidentiary criteria met, and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

A fashion model agency petitioned for a model under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. The approved petition was revoked after a support letter proved falsified. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the agency did not resolve the misrepresentation finding, and noted an itinerary concern. This is the arts category, not O-1A.

The petitioner sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. On appeal, the petitioner failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center's denial and did not submit the promised brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of substantive appellate argument.

Employer petitioned for pattern maker and fashion designer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the service center's denial decision.

A symphony orchestra petitioned to employ a pianist as O-1A nonimmigrant. The petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, lead performer status, published recognition, and commercial success. The AAO found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a significant national or international award and satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria, dismissing the appeal.

A Georgian folk dance studio petitioned for a choreographer beneficiary as O-1 extraordinary ability in the arts. The director found one criterion met; the petitioner claimed two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found no evidence of lead or starring roles with distinguished reputation organizations, no sufficient information on future roles, and comparable evidence arguments failed. Fewer than three criteria met; appeal dismissed.

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.

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.