This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The AAO also reversed the director's finding on the judging criterion, leaving the beneficiary with only one confirmed criterion (published material).
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A dance studio filed an O-1 petition for a dance instructor specializing in ballroom and Latin dance. The Vermont Service Center director denied the petition, finding only two of the required three criteria met (published material and judging). On appeal, the AAO reversed the judging finding because the petitioner submitted only registration credentials and a promotional flyer rather than records showing actual participation as a judge at specific competitions. The AAO also found the original contributions, critical/essential role, and high salary criteria unmet due to insufficient evidence. With only one criterion (published material) established, the beneficiary fell short of the minimum evidentiary threshold and the appeal was dismissed.
What worked: Only the published material criterion survived review without challenge; the petitioner had obtained some press coverage of the dance performances.
What failed: 1. Judging criterion failed because adjudicator registration cards alone do not prove actual judging at competitions — event-specific records are required. 2. Original contributions claim failed because a local musical show and a vague recommendation letter did not demonstrate field-wide impact of major significance. 3. Critical/essential role claim failed because neither the charity event nor the dance camp was shown to have a distinguished reputation, and the beneficiary's role was not proven to be integral. 4. High salary claim failed because the comparison data was for 'dancers' rather than 'dance instructors,' and the offered salary was only slightly above average.
Takeaway: For the judging criterion, submit official event scoresheets, panel rosters, or competition organizer letters confirming actual participation — credentials alone are not enough. For salary comparisons, use occupationally matched wage data and ensure the offered compensation clearly falls at the top of the pay range.
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
- Only the published material criterion survived review without challenge
- the petitioner had obtained some press coverage of the dance performances.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Judging criterion failed because adjudicator registration cards alone do not prove actual judging at competitions — event-specific records are required
- Original contributions claim failed because a local musical show and a vague recommendation letter did not demonstrate field-wide impact of major significance
- Critical/essential role claim failed because neither the charity event nor the dance camp was shown to have a distinguished reputation, and the beneficiary's role was not proven to be integral
- High salary claim failed because the comparison data was for 'dancers' rather than 'dance instructors,' and the offered salary was only slightly above average.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metClaimed on appeal but not adjudicated because threshold could not be met regardless.
Published material about the person
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding.
Judging the work of others
Reversed in their favorDirector had found this met, but AAO reversed, finding that registration cards and a promotional flyer did not prove actual participation as a judge at specific competitions.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metMusical show choreography and a recommendation letter from a notable choreographer were insufficient; no evidence of major significance or field-wide impact.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metClaimed for a charity sport event and T-V-L- dance training camp; neither organization's distinguished reputation was established, and beneficiary's role did not rise to critical/essential level.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metOffered salary of $60,000/yr compared to dancer median wages; comparison data was for 'dancers' not 'dance instructors,' and salary was only slightly above median, not at the high end.
Completed
I-129 filed
Dance instructor and choreographer specializing in ballroom (Standard) and Latin dance
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-08-15
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The AAO also reversed the director's finding on the judging criterion, leaving the beneficiary with only one confirmed criterion (published material).
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.