Published AAO appeal decisions

An entertainment business sought to employ a musician in O-1 status, which concerns the arts rather than O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of a bona fide employer and definite employment. Given new evidence on appeal, the AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a new decision.

A dance studio sought O-1 classification for a competitive dancer, choreographer and coach under the arts standard. The AAO found the work was athletic, not artistic, and that the evidence met only one of the arts criteria. This is an O-1B arts-standard filing, so the appeal was dismissed.

Restaurant and catering business petitioned for culinary director as O-1A extraordinary ability beneficiary. AAO found beneficiary met only one of six possible criteria (high salary) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or distinguished reputation in culinary events, thus denying the petition.

Motion on P-1 nonimmigrant visa petition for boxer. Petitioner sought to reopen appeal of Service Center denial. AAO dismissed motion to reopen and motion to reconsider as lacking new facts addressing distinguished competition and international reputation requirements.

A company executive was the beneficiary of an O-1 extension petition filed by his employer in the business field. The director denied it over a suspended corporate status and a willful misrepresentation finding. The AAO withdrew the decision and remanded, because the director did not adequately consider the response to the notice of intent to deny.

A talent agency petitioned for O-1A classification for a stand-up comedian. The petitioner claimed lead performer status, national recognition, and commercial success. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required evidentiary criteria and dismissed the appeal without reaching the overall sustained acclaim analysis.

An actress sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The petitioner (production company) filed a third motion to reconsider after two prior dismissals, resubmitting identical arguments and evidence without demonstrating legal or policy errors in prior decisions. The AAO dismissed the motion because the petitioner failed to meet the procedural requirement of showing proper cause under applicable regulations.

A martial arts school petitioned for O-1 classification for a coach. The beneficiary met only one criterion (judging). The AAO affirmed dismissal because membership and published material criteria were not satisfied and beneficiary failed to establish at least three of eight required criteria for extraordinary ability.

A skydiving center sought to employ a beneficiary as an O-1A nonimmigrant skydiving instructor. The beneficiary met only the awards criterion but failed to establish at least three required criteria overall; the appeal was dismissed because the petitioner could not satisfy the initial evidentiary threshold.

A petitioner sought O-1A classification for a beneficiary writer, academic, curator, and poet. The AAO dismissed the appeal based on waived procedural issues: insufficient contract, failure to demonstrate events and activities, unmet advisory opinion requirement, and non-compliance with initial evidence thresholds.

Fitness management company petitioned for O-1A classification for bodybuilder after initial approval was revoked. AAO dismissed appeal, affirming revocation because beneficiary met only awards criterion and lacked sufficient documentation of membership, publications, and legitimate high salary evidence.

A boutique pastry shop petitioned to classify its executive head pastry chef under O-1A extraordinary ability. The beneficiary claimed five criteria. The AAO found recommendation letters do not constitute required evidentiary forms, online publication does not meet major publication standard, and salary evidence was insufficient, dismissing the appeal.

Horse breeding business petitioned for stallion manager as O-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but AAO found only one met. Comparable evidence for awards criterion rejected because petitioner failed to show criterion does not apply to occupation. Appeal dismissed.

Martial arts studio petitioned for instructor beneficiary for O-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Beneficiary met only one of three required initial criteria and could not establish sustained national or international acclaim; appeal dismissed.

Media production agency petitioned for O-1A classification for senior vice president of production finance. AAO dismissed motions, finding only one criterion met and insufficient documentation of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.

An artist agent, who is also a professor of studio arts, petitioned for a fine artist under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. This is O-1B, not O-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not satisfy three of the alternative regulatory criteria.

An athlete management business sought to extend O-2 status for two support workers accompanying a professional athlete holding O-1 status, working as content creators and media strategists. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the record did not show substantial experience with critical skills integral to the athlete's performance, and credibility concerns arose.

A business management company petitioned for O-1A classification for a writer, creator, and executive producer in motion picture or television. The Director denied based on deficient event descriptions. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the petition as moot because the beneficiary had already adjusted to permanent resident status in September 2021 after filing the appeal.