This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory written advisory opinion (consultation) requirement. The petitioner did not submit consultations from the Directors Guild of America (DGA) for the beneficiary's directing duties or from a management organization (AMPTP) by the RFE deadline, and new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
An art studio filed an O-1B petition to employ a beneficiary as an art director/director/writer for motion picture and television productions. The Director denied the petition partly because the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory consultation requirement. The petitioner initially submitted an inapplicable SAG-AFTRA letter and an expert opinion letter, neither of which qualified as proper union consultations. After an RFE, the petitioner provided only a partial WGAE letter covering screenwriting but not directing, and failed to submit a DGA letter or a timely AMPTP letter. On appeal, the AMPTP letter was submitted for the first time but rejected as untimely under Matter of Soriano. Because the consultation requirement was not satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching the extraordinary achievement merits.
What failed: 1. The petitioner initially relied on SAG-AFTRA (which only covers on-camera talent) and a private expert opinion letter, neither of which meets the O-1B consultation requirement for a director/writer role. 2. The WGAE letter submitted in response to the RFE only covered screenwriting and expressly excluded directing duties, leaving the DGA consultation gap unresolved. 3. The AMPTP advisory opinion was submitted for the first time on appeal and was rejected as untimely; even if accepted, it would not have cured the missing DGA consultation.
Takeaway: For O-1B petitions involving multi-role talent (e.g., writer-director), petitioners must identify and obtain consultation letters from every applicable labor organization (here, both WGAE and DGA) and the appropriate management organization (AMPTP) before filing or, at the latest, by the RFE response deadline — incomplete or late submissions will not be cured on appeal.
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 initially relied on SAG-AFTRA (which only covers on-camera talent) and a private expert opinion letter, neither of which meets the O-1B consultation requirement for a director/writer role
- The WGAE letter submitted in response to the RFE only covered screenwriting and expressly excluded directing duties, leaving the DGA consultation gap unresolved
- The AMPTP advisory opinion was submitted for the first time on appeal and was rejected as untimely
- even if accepted, it would not have cured the missing DGA consultation.
Completed
I-129 filed
Art director / writer / director for short films and documentaries
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-08-27
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory written advisory opinion (consultation) requirement. The petitioner did not submit consultations from the Directors Guild of America (DGA) for the beneficiary's directing duties or from a management organization (AMPTP) by the RFE deadline, and new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered.
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.