This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider because the Petitioner repeated the same arguments already addressed in the prior decision and failed to demonstrate that the AAO's prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A restaurant petitioned for O-1 nonimmigrant status for an executive chef claiming extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. The Director denied the petition after finding credibility issues with submitted documentation, including articles with the Beneficiary's information apparently inserted after the fact and evidence of post-filing events. The AAO dismissed a subsequent appeal because the Petitioner's brief mirrored the prior motion brief without addressing the Director's specific findings. On this motion to reconsider, the Petitioner again repeated the same arguments and cited the same case law, which the AAO found insufficient to meet the legal standard for reconsideration — demonstrating that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
What failed: The Petitioner failed to address the Director's specific findings at each stage of the process, instead repeating the same arguments. Documentation submitted in support of eligibility contained credibility issues, including articles with the Beneficiary's name apparently inserted post hoc and evidence relating to events after the petition filing date. New evidence submitted on appeal and on motion was not considered because it was untimely.
Takeaway: Petitioners must directly address each specific finding made by adjudicators at every stage of review; repeating prior arguments without rebutting identified deficiencies will not succeed. Evidence submitted must be authentic and relate to events before the petition filing date.
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 failed to address the Director's specific findings at each stage of the process, instead repeating the same arguments
- Documentation submitted in support of eligibility contained credibility issues, including articles with the Beneficiary's name apparently inserted post hoc and evidence relating to events after the petition filing date
- New evidence submitted on appeal and on motion was not considered because it was untimely.
Appellate brief that mirrored prior motion brief without addressing Director's motion decision findings
Evidence submitted for the first time on appeal and on motion to reconsider
Articles found to have the Beneficiary's name and information inserted into them post-hoc, not present in original articles
Evidence related to events occurring after the petition filing date
Completed
I-129 filed
Executive chef
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-08-28
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider because the Petitioner repeated the same arguments already addressed in the prior decision and failed to demonstrate that the AAO's prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
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.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee