This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to contest three of the four grounds for denial — the contract requirement, the events/activities explanation, and the advisory opinion requirement — effectively waiving those issues on appeal. Since those uncontested grounds were independently dispositive, the AAO dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of the evidentiary criteria.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The Vermont Service Center denied the O-1 petition on four grounds: lack of a sufficient contract, failure to demonstrate the beneficiary's events or activities, failure to satisfy the advisory opinion requirement, and failure to meet the evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. On appeal, the Petitioner only challenged the evidentiary criteria ground while ignoring the other three. The AAO held that by failing to address those three uncontested grounds, the Petitioner waived them. Since those grounds were independently dispositive, the AAO dismissed the appeal without ever reaching the question of whether the beneficiary satisfied three of the eight evidentiary criteria. Additionally, new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal was not considered because the Petitioner had been given an earlier opportunity to submit evidence via a Request for Evidence.
What failed: The Petitioner failed to contest three independently dispositive grounds for denial — the contract requirement, the events/activities explanation, and the advisory opinion requirement — on appeal, resulting in those issues being deemed waived. New evidence submitted for the first time on appeal was rejected because the Petitioner had been given a prior opportunity to submit it via a Request for Evidence and did not do so in time.
Takeaway: When appealing a denial, petitioners must address every ground the adjudicator cited for denial, not just the ones they feel strongest about — failing to contest even one dispositive ground can be fatal to the entire appeal. Additionally, all supporting evidence should be submitted during the RFE response stage, as new evidence introduced for the first time on appeal is generally not considered.
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
- The Petitioner failed to contest three independently dispositive grounds for denial — the contract requirement, the events/activities explanation, and the advisory opinion requirement — on appeal, resulting in those issues being deemed waived
- New evidence submitted for the first time on appeal was rejected because the Petitioner had been given a prior opportunity to submit it via a Request for Evidence and did not do so in time.
Completed
I-129 filed
Writer, academic, curator, and poet
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-08-15
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to contest three of the four grounds for denial — the contract requirement, the events/activities explanation, and the advisory opinion requirement — effectively waiving those issues on appeal. Since those uncontested grounds were independently dispositive, the AAO dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of the evidentiary criteria.
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.