This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary failed to meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria required for O-1B classification. The AAO also reversed the Director's favorable finding on the high salary criterion, leaving the Beneficiary with zero criteria met.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
An entertainment company filed an O-1B petition seeking nonimmigrant status for a singer claiming extraordinary ability. The California Service Center Director denied the petition, finding only one criterion (high salary) met. On appeal, the AAO dismissed the case, finding that neither the lead/starring role criterion nor the high salary criterion was established. The lead/starring criterion failed because the petitioner focused on the venue's reputation rather than the specific events, and did not submit the required documentary evidence such as critical reviews or endorsements. The high salary criterion was reversed because the petitioner's salary comparisons used hourly/yearly data that could not be applied to a per-concert payment structure. With zero criteria satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching the totality-of-the-evidence analysis.
What failed: 1. Demonstrating distinguished reputation of specific events: The petitioner confused the venue's prestige with the reputation of the Beneficiary's individual concert, and provided no critical reviews, endorsements, or publicity materials specifically about the event. 2. High salary evidence: The petitioner compared a per-concert fee of $15,000 against hourly/yearly wage benchmarks, making it impossible to show the fee was high relative to others similarly paid per performance. 3. TV series evidence: Article postings and a recommendation letter were not recognized as qualifying forms of documentation under the regulatory criteria.
Takeaway: For O-1B petitions, petitioners must submit the specific types of evidence listed in the regulations (e.g., critical reviews, endorsements) for each criterion — general promotional materials or informal letters will not suffice. When establishing high salary, compensation must be compared on the same basis (e.g., per-concert fees must be compared to other artists' per-concert fees, not hourly wages).
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
- Demonstrating distinguished reputation of specific events: The petitioner confused the venue's prestige with the reputation of the Beneficiary's individual concert, and provided no critical reviews, endorsements, or publicity materials specifically about the event
- High salary evidence: The petitioner compared a per-concert fee of $15,000 against hourly/yearly wage benchmarks, making it impossible to show the fee was high relative to others similarly paid per performance
- TV series evidence: Article postings and a recommendation letter were not recognized as qualifying forms of documentation under the regulatory criteria.
Screenshots advertising a 2018 sold-out concert at a resort casino did not establish the distinguished reputation of the event itself, only the venue.
Article postings and interview translations regarding an Armenian TV series did not qualify as critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or endorsements.
Recommendation letter from the TV series general manager did not constitute a critical review, advertisement, or endorsement.
Availability of the TV series on YouTube and streaming portals was not equivalent to required regulatory documentation.
Petitioner's own RFE response letter about future performances did not qualify as a critical review, advertisement, or endorsement.
Deal Memo for $15,000 per performance was not shown to be a valid contract, and wage comparisons (hourly/yearly) did not provide concert-specific compensation benchmarks.
The Director erroneously found the high salary criterion met despite the petitioner not providing comparable per-concert compensation data or demonstrating the Deal Memo was a valid contract.
Completed
I-129 filed
Singer performing Armenian music and songs
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-02-22
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary failed to meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria required for O-1B classification. The AAO also reversed the Director's favorable finding on the high salary criterion, leaving the Beneficiary with zero criteria met.
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