AUG302022_01D8101Decided 2022-08-30I-129

An O-1 appeal filed on behalf of a content creator was rejected because the agent submitted the Form I-290B with an…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
O-1BField: content creator
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The appeal was rejected because the petitioner (an agent) submitted a Form I-290B with a signature created by auto-pen rather than a valid handwritten or authorized electronic signature, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). USCIS does not accept signatures created by typewriter, stamp, auto-pen, or similar devices.

0 / 3 criteria needed Need 3 more

3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.

In plain English

An agent petitioned for O-1 nonimmigrant status on behalf of a content creator seeking to work in the United States. The California Service Center denied the underlying I-129 petition on multiple grounds, including failure to meet any of the required evidentiary criteria, lack of required consultation, and missing contract copies. On appeal, the AAO did not reach the merits of the denial because the Form I-290B appeal itself was improperly filed — the petitioner used an auto-pen signature rather than a valid handwritten or authorized electronic signature as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). The appeal was rejected without substantive review.

What worked & what failed

What failed: The Form I-290B appeal was filed with an auto-pen signature, which USCIS expressly prohibits. USCIS requires a handwritten or authorized electronic signature; stamps, typewritten names, and auto-pen devices are not acceptable. Because the appeal itself was improperly signed, it was rejected outright without any review of the underlying merits.

Takeaway: Always ensure that all USCIS filings, especially appeal forms like the I-290B, bear a valid original handwritten signature. Using auto-pen, stamps, or typewritten signatures will result in outright rejection, preventing any substantive review of the case.

For RFE responses & petition building

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 Form I-290B appeal was filed with an auto-pen signature, which USCIS expressly prohibits
  • USCIS requires a handwritten or authorized electronic signature
  • stamps, typewritten names, and auto-pen devices are not acceptable
  • Because the appeal itself was improperly signed, it was rejected outright without any review of the underlying merits.
Find more O-1B cases with similar evidence patterns →
How the case moved

Completed

I-129 filed

Content creator

Completed

California Service Center — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2022-08-30

AAO decision — Dismissed

The appeal was rejected because the petitioner (an agent) submitted a Form I-290B with a signature created by auto-pen rather than a valid handwritten or authorized electronic signature, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). USCIS does not accept signatures created by typewriter, stamp, auto-pen, or similar devices.

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.