Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded the case for further proceedings because new evidence submitted on appeal — including statements and documentation about the petitioning business's address and the performance venue — warranted reconsideration of whether a bona fide U.S. employer and definite employment existed.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The California Service Center denied this O-1B petition for a musician, finding that USCIS site visits could not confirm the petitioner's business address or the proposed performance venue, raising doubts about whether a bona fide U.S. employer and definite employment existed. The Director never reached the question of the beneficiary's extraordinary ability. On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional documentation — including a statement from a representative at the business address and online records for the performance venue. The AAO found this new evidence warranted fresh consideration and withdrew the denial, remanding the case to the Director for a new decision on the full record including the appeal evidence.
What worked: New evidence submitted on appeal — a statement from the occupant of the petitioner's business address and online documentation for the performance venue — was sufficient to persuade the AAO that the Director's findings deserved reconsideration rather than outright affirmance.
What failed: The initial record left the petitioner's physical business location and the performance venue unverified; USCIS site visits found no trace of the petitioner at the stated address, and calls to the venue went unanswered, which drove the denial. The extraordinary ability evidence was never evaluated because the employer legitimacy issue was treated as dispositive.
Takeaway: Petitioners must be prepared to document their physical business operations with hard evidence — leases, tax filings, and third-party confirmations — because USCIS may conduct site visits. When new evidence emerges after a denial, submitting it promptly on appeal can prompt a remand rather than outright affirmance.
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
- New evidence submitted on appeal — a statement from the occupant of the petitioner's business address and online documentation for the performance venue — was sufficient to persuade the AAO that the Director's findings deserved reconsideration rather than outright affirmance.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The initial record left the petitioner's physical business location and the performance venue unverified
- USCIS site visits found no trace of the petitioner at the stated address, and calls to the venue went unanswered, which drove the denial
- The extraordinary ability evidence was never evaluated because the employer legitimacy issue was treated as dispositive.
2020 U.S. Form 1120-S listing the petitioner's business address
2016 articles of incorporation filed with the California Secretary of State
2021 Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State
Statement from the representative of the business at the petitioner's address submitted on appeal
Online printouts pertaining to the claimed performance venue restaurant submitted on appeal
USCIS on-site visit in March 2022 found the address associated with a different business whose representative was unaware of the petitioner
USCIS could not verify the location of the performance venue restaurant during a second site visit
The Director denied the petition solely on bona fide employer and definite employment grounds without addressing the Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
The Director did not consider new evidence submitted on appeal regarding the petitioner's business location and the performance venue before issuing a final decision.
Completed
I-129 filed
Musician
Completed
California Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-12-30
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded the case for further proceedings because new evidence submitted on appeal — including statements and documentation about the petitioning business's address and the performance venue — warranted reconsideration of whether a bona fide U.S. employer and definite employment existed.
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