This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide the required written advisory opinion from both a labor union and a management organization in the MPTV industry. The advisory opinion submitted was from a peer group outside the MPTV industry and did not satisfy the mandatory consultation requirement.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, acting as agent, filed an O-1B petition for a beneficiary intended to work as an art director on a feature film and animated short videos. SCOPS denied the petition for failure to satisfy the mandatory consultation requirement, which requires written advisory opinions from both an appropriate labor union and a management organization in the MPTV field. On appeal, the petitioner argued that SCOPS was obligated to forward the petition to the appropriate labor organization, but the AAO found this regulation inapplicable because the submitted advisory opinion came from a non-MPTV peer group, not an MPTV peer group. A management advisory opinion submitted for the first time on appeal was rejected as untimely under Matter of Soriano, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal or policy error in SCOPS's decision.
What failed: The petitioner submitted an advisory opinion from a national arts service organization outside the MPTV industry, which did not fulfill the mandatory MPTV consultation requirement. The petitioner failed to provide a required management organization advisory opinion during initial filing or in response to the RFE, and submitting it for the first time on appeal was rejected as untimely. The argument that MPTV work was incidental to the beneficiary's non-MPTV artistic work was unsupported by the deal memo, which confirmed the beneficiary's essential role on a feature film.
Takeaway: For O-1B petitions involving any MPTV work, petitioners must submit advisory opinions from both the appropriate labor union and a management organization at the time of filing; waiting until an RFE response or appeal is too late. If there is any ambiguity about whether the beneficiary's work qualifies as MPTV, the petitioner should proactively address and document the incidental nature of any MPTV involvement.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating O-1B criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner submitted an advisory opinion from a national arts service organization outside the MPTV industry, which did not fulfill the mandatory MPTV consultation requirement
- The petitioner failed to provide a required management organization advisory opinion during initial filing or in response to the RFE, and submitting it for the first time on appeal was rejected as untimely
- The argument that MPTV work was incidental to the beneficiary's non-MPTV artistic work was unsupported by the deal memo, which confirmed the beneficiary's essential role on a feature film.
Completed
I-129 filed
Art director working on feature films and animated short videos for games
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-04-14
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide the required written advisory opinion from both a labor union and a management organization in the MPTV industry. The advisory opinion submitted was from a peer group outside the MPTV industry and did not satisfy the mandatory consultation requirement.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.