Published AAO appeal decisions

Horse racing trainer sought O-1A classification as an artist, but AAO determined the occupation (race horse training and business operation) falls within business or athletics, not the arts. Petitioner self-petitioned, which is impermissible for O-1A. Appeal dismissed on multiple independent grounds.

A chief executive officer working in search engine optimization was proposed for O-1A classification in business and science. The director denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner stated only a general disagreement, identified no specific legal or factual error, and filed no promised brief or evidence.

A marketing manager specializing in search engine optimization was proposed by a company for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filing named no specific error of law or fact and the promised brief or evidence never arrived.

A copywriter and creative supervisor sought O-1A classification; petitioner abandoned two criteria and failed to meet at least three of the remaining criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding beneficiary did not qualify and comparable evidence was not applicable.

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.