Published AAO appeal decisions

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

Actor and production crew member petitioned for O-1B (MPTV) nonimmigrant classification by an agent. Petitioner claimed eligibility under O-1B (MPTV) criteria but failed to meet evidentiary requirements. On appeal, petitioner attempted to switch to O-1B (Arts) classification, which was improper because the beneficiary intended to perform services in motion picture and television industry.

A restaurant petitioned for an executive chef's O-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds: signature discrepancies on Form G-28 and Form I-290B prevented recognition of counsel and the appeal itself, rendering the merits unreachable.

Fencing club petitions for fencing master's O-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one of eight criteria met. Awards criterion failed because evidence showed students' achievements, not beneficiary's own. Judging criterion failed due to uncorroborated self-serving assertions. Appeal dismissed.

A restaurant petitioned to classify a mixologist as O-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner initially claimed O-1A (sciences, education, business, athletics) but later argued mixology is O-1B (arts). The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petition was filed under O-1A, which does not cover arts; the petitioner cannot change classifications mid-process and must satisfy the category claimed at filing.

Archaeology business petitions for O-1 visa for archaeologist beneficiary. Appeal dismissed on consultation requirement grounds: Turkish-American organization consulted lacked demonstrated expertise in archaeology or archaeology business. Merits regarding evidentiary criteria reserved and not decided.

A tattoo arts studio petitioned for O-1A classification for a tattoo artist. The petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through a 2022 award and lead performances at multiple events. The AAO found the award lacked standing and that participation in events did not demonstrate starring or lead roles, dismissing the appeal.

Tattoo studio petitioned for O-1A classification for tattoo artist beneficiary. AAO determined beneficiary met at least three evidentiary criteria despite SCOPS finding only two. Decision withdrawn and remanded for SCOPS to evaluate totality of evidence and determine whether beneficiary demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim in the arts.

Technology company petitioning for cofounder and CEO claiming extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. Required three of eight criteria; met only one. AAO held venture funding, Forbes membership, and website articles insufficient under O-1A requirements.

AI technology company petitioned for O-1A classification of chief technology officer. Beneficiary met only one criterion (judging); awards, membership, and published material criteria were not satisfied. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary could not meet minimum three criteria requirement for extraordinary ability.

A company seeks O-1A classification for its financial vice president. The AAO found the beneficiary did not satisfy three required evidentiary criteria. Award evidence was not nationally or internationally recognized, membership and judging claims lacked comparability to regulatory standards, and the appeal was dismissed.

Dance choreographer sponsored by dance studio for O-1A visa. Claimed significant awards and multiple evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized award and failure to meet at least three alternative criteria required for extraordinary ability.