This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary failed to satisfy at least three of the required evidentiary criteria for O-1 extraordinary ability classification. Only one criterion (published material) was found met, falling short of the required three.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A dance studio petitioned for O-1 extraordinary ability classification for a dance instructor and choreographer. The Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition finding only one criterion (published material) satisfied. On appeal, the Petitioner claimed five additional criteria, but the AAO found the evidence insufficient. The judging criterion was raised for the first time on appeal and therefore not considered. Evidence of the Beneficiary's musical show production, a vague recommendation letter, and participation in a charity event and a TV dance show failed to establish original contributions of major significance or employment in a critical/essential role for distinguished organizations. The proposed salary of $60,000 was compared to the wrong occupational category and was only slightly above median. Because the Beneficiary met only one of the required three criteria, the appeal was dismissed without reaching a totality-of-the-evidence determination.
What failed: 1. Recommendation letter lacked letterhead, contact information, and specific examples of how the Beneficiary's work impacted the field — drastically reducing its probative value. 2. Salary comparison used dancer wage data rather than dance instructor data, and the offered salary was only slightly above the median rather than genuinely high. 3. Evidence of participation in a charity event and a TV show did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary held a critical or essential role within an organization of distinguished reputation, and no corroborating letters from knowledgeable insiders were provided.
Takeaway: Petitioners must ensure that recommendation letters are detailed, on letterhead, and specifically explain how the beneficiary's work has significantly impacted the field. Salary comparisons must use wage data for the exact occupation the beneficiary will perform, not a related but different role.
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-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Recommendation letter lacked letterhead, contact information, and specific examples of how the Beneficiary's work impacted the field — drastically reducing its probative value
- Salary comparison used dancer wage data rather than dance instructor data, and the offered salary was only slightly above the median rather than genuinely high
- Evidence of participation in a charity event and a TV show did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary held a critical or essential role within an organization of distinguished reputation, and no corroborating letters from knowledgeable insiders were provided.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metAwards criterion raised by Petitioner but not addressed by AAO because threshold of three criteria could not be met regardless.
Published material about the person
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO did not disturb that finding. Only criterion found satisfied.
Judging the work of others
Not metRaised for first time on appeal; AAO declined to consider new claims not raised before the Director per Matter of Soriano.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metEvidence of musical show production and a recommendation letter found insufficient to show contributions of major significance in the dance field.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metEmployment with charity event, TV dance show, and T-V-L- dance camp found insufficient; organizations not shown to have distinguished reputation and Beneficiary's role not shown to be critical or essential.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metOffered salary of $60,000/year compared to dancer wages (wrong occupation category) and found only slightly above median, not high relative to peers.
Completed
I-129 filed
Dance instructor and choreographer
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-08-13
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary failed to satisfy at least three of the required evidentiary criteria for O-1 extraordinary ability classification. Only one criterion (published material) was found met, falling short of the required three.
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.