Published AAO appeal decisions

Artistic director and drama teacher seeks O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple criteria but established only one. Director found insufficient evidence of lead roles in distinguished productions and inadequate testimonials from recognized experts. Appeal dismissed as beneficiary did not meet minimum three-criterion requirement.

Senior iOS developer petitioned by software firm for O-1A visa. Petitioner claimed awards, membership in business organizations, judging, and high salary, but AAO found the submitted award lacked objective criteria and field recognition, membership failed to meet standards, and new claims on appeal were procedurally barred. Appeal dismissed.

Squash professional petitioned by club for O-1A visa. Service center denied for failing to meet evidentiary criteria. Petitioner's appeal dismissed summarily for lack of specificity. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner provided no new facts or evidence, and appellant brief was not properly filed with AAO.

The beneficiary is a boxer and trainer for whom an agent sought O-1A classification. The petitioner claimed membership, original contributions through comparable evidence, and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because membership and contributions were not established, so three criteria were not satisfied, and it reserved the final merits.

A business petitioned for O-1A status for a physiotherapist, and the director denied it for failing the initial evidentiary requirements. On appeal, the AAO found the matter moot because another petition for the same worker had since been approved, so it did not reach the merits and dismissed the appeal.

Investment firm petitions for O-1A classification for external managers evaluation specialist. Petitioner failed to submit required advisory opinion and satisfied only two of eight evidentiary criteria. Missing published material documentation and failing to establish three alternate criteria, petition dismissed.

A ballroom dance academy petitioned to classify a ballroom dance teacher as O-1A extraordinary ability. The petition was originally approved but revoked due to procedural error: the beneficiary changed employers without filing a new petition, merely amending the prior one. The AAO upheld revocation because regulations require a new petition, not an amendment, for employer changes.

A software and investment firm sought O-1 classification for an investment and marketing specialist. After a summary dismissal of the appeal, the firm filed untimely combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The AAO found the delay was not reasonable or beyond the firm's control and dismissed both motions without reaching the merits.

Restaurant petitioned for executive chef's O-1A classification. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, holding petitioner failed to raise new legal or factual grounds and repeated prior arguments without addressing erroneous application of law.

An art studio sought O-1A nonimmigrant classification for an art director in motion pictures or television. Petition failed mandatory consultation requirement: lacking written advisory opinions from DGA union and AMPTP management organization. Petitioner presented evidence for first time on appeal after RFE, which was not considered. Appeal dismissed without addressing extraordinary achievement criteria.

A dance studio petitions for an O-1A visa for a dance instructor. The AAO found only one criterion met (published material) and rejected the judge criterion by withdrawing the service center's approval. It found original contributions insufficiently shown and determined the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria.

Dance studio petitioned for dance instructor beneficiary for O-1A classification. Service center found one criterion met. AAO affirmed that beneficiary met only one criterion and rejected original contributions claim based on lack of evidence of major significance. Petition dismissed as beneficiary failed to satisfy three-criterion requirement.

A tennis training center petitioned for a tennis coach under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not provide a valid contract or summary of an oral agreement, since the submitted agreement was undated and unsigned by the beneficiary. The remaining grounds of denial were not reached.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification for executive chef of extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to demonstrate nomination for significant awards or at least three of six regulatory criteria; evidence of participation in distinguished productions and published recognition was insufficient.

Interior design business petitioned for senior interior designer O-1A nonimmigrant classification. AAO affirmed dismissal finding beneficiary met only published materials and recognition criteria; did not satisfy three-criterion threshold; petitioner also lacked valid U.S. employer status.

A talent agency petitioned for O-1A classification of a photographer claiming extraordinary ability. The applicant failed to meet the evidentiary criteria: published material lacked proper documentation and major publication status, and critical recognition letters came from non-photography experts. The appeal was dismissed.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification of executive chef claiming extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to establish any of the required evidentiary criteria, with evidence containing credibility and consistency issues.