This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to challenge SCOPS's O-1B (MPTV) denial on appeal and instead argued for O-1B (Arts) classification, which is unavailable when the beneficiary intends to work in the motion picture or television industry. By not contesting the MPTV determination, the petitioner waived that ground of ineligibility.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, acting as agent for her grandson (the beneficiary), sought O-1 classification for him to work as an actor and script supervisor in the United States. SCOPS denied the petition under the O-1B (MPTV) standard, finding the beneficiary's planned work was in the motion picture and television industry. On appeal, the petitioner did not challenge the MPTV denial but instead argued for O-1B (Arts) classification, which is a procedural and legal mistake. The AAO held that because the beneficiary intended to work in the MPTV industry, O-1B (Arts) was not available to him, and by failing to contest the MPTV ruling, the petitioner waived that ground. The appeal was therefore dismissed without reaching the merits of the evidentiary criteria.
What failed: The petitioner failed to challenge SCOPS's O-1B (MPTV) denial on appeal, which constituted a waiver of that ground under BIA precedent. Instead of addressing the MPTV requirements, the petitioner argued for O-1B (Arts) classification, which is inapplicable when the beneficiary intends to work in motion picture or television productions. Comparable evidence, which is allowed under O-1B (Arts), is not permitted under O-1B (MPTV), so this strategy was doubly flawed.
Takeaway: Petitioners must carefully identify and contest the correct visa classification on appeal — failing to address the denied classification constitutes a waiver. When a beneficiary intends to work in film or television, the O-1B (MPTV) standard applies and cannot be substituted with the less stringent O-1B (Arts) standard, even if the work is artistic in nature.
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 challenge SCOPS's O-1B (MPTV) denial on appeal, which constituted a waiver of that ground under BIA precedent
- Instead of addressing the MPTV requirements, the petitioner argued for O-1B (Arts) classification, which is inapplicable when the beneficiary intends to work in motion picture or television productions
- Comparable evidence, which is allowed under O-1B (Arts), is not permitted under O-1B (MPTV), so this strategy was doubly flawed.
Completed
I-129 filed
Actor and script supervisor in film and television productions
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-12-03
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to challenge SCOPS's O-1B (MPTV) denial on appeal and instead argued for O-1B (Arts) classification, which is unavailable when the beneficiary intends to work in the motion picture or television industry. By not contesting the MPTV determination, the petitioner waived that ground of ineligibility.
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.