This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate the beneficiary met at least three of the six alternate evidentiary criteria required for O-1 extraordinary ability in the arts. Specifically, the lead/starring participant criterion was not met due to insufficient evidence of a future lead or starring role in distinguished productions or events.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
An artist management and booking agency sought an O-1B visa extension for a clarinetist, but the Vermont Service Center denied the petition for failing to meet the initial evidentiary threshold. On appeal, the AAO found that only one of the required three criteria was met — significant recognition from experts in the field — while the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary would perform in a lead or starring role in distinguished productions or events. The petitioner's reliance on a nonprofit music education organization's letter, teaching itinerary, and student showcase program was insufficient because these did not use proper evidentiary forms (such as critical reviews, advertisements, or contracts) and did not show a lead or starring role in distinguished events. Since the three-criteria threshold was not met, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination on extraordinary ability.
What worked: The beneficiary received significant recognition from organizations, critics, and other recognized experts in the field (criterion 5), which was accepted by both the Director and AAO. Evidence of past participation in productions with distinguished reputations was also found sufficient.
What failed: The petitioner failed to show future lead or starring participation in distinguished productions or events using the required evidentiary forms (critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, contracts, or endorsements). A nonprofit music education teaching role and student showcase program were insufficient to establish a lead or starring role in distinguished events. Testimonial/recommendation letters are not an accepted form of evidence for this criterion. The significant national or international award criterion was also not contested on appeal and was considered abandoned.
Takeaway: For the O-1B lead/starring criterion, petitioners must provide proper documentary evidence — such as contracts, advertisements, or publicity releases — that specifically identifies the beneficiary's lead or starring role in events with documented distinguished reputations; teaching roles at educational organizations are unlikely to satisfy this criterion. Petitioners should also be careful not to abandon arguments on appeal by failing to address criteria denied at the director level.
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
- The beneficiary received significant recognition from organizations, critics, and other recognized experts in the field (criterion 5), which was accepted by both the Director and AAO
- Evidence of past participation in productions with distinguished reputations was also found sufficient.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner failed to show future lead or starring participation in distinguished productions or events using the required evidentiary forms (critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, contracts, or endorsements)
- A nonprofit music education teaching role and student showcase program were insufficient to establish a lead or starring role in distinguished events
- Testimonial/recommendation letters are not an accepted form of evidence for this criterion
- The significant national or international award criterion was also not contested on appeal and was considered abandoned.
Completed
I-129 filed
Classical clarinetist and music instructor
Completed
Vermont Service Center Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-08-31
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate the beneficiary met at least three of the six alternate evidentiary criteria required for O-1 extraordinary ability in the arts. Specifically, the lead/starring participant criterion was not met due to insufficient evidence of a future lead or starring role in distinguished productions or events.
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.