The AAO dismissed an O-1 petition for a school and career counselor after finding she failed to satisfy even three of…

An education counseling company filed an O-1 petition for a school and career counselor, but the Vermont Service Center director denied it for failure to meet the initial evidentiary threshold and the consultation requirement. On appeal, the AAO found that testimonial letters submitted for the original contributions criterion were insufficient because they praised the Beneficiary without showing major significance to the field as a whole. The high-salary criterion was not met because the proposed $60,000 salary was near the median, and new evidence of a raise was submitted too late to be considered. Comparable evidence in the form of patent applications was also rejected because the Petitioner failed to explain why listed criteria did not apply to counseling and because the applications were filed after the petition date. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the Petitioner could not reach the minimum three criteria required.

What failed: 1. Testimonial letters praising the Beneficiary's work were general and failed to demonstrate that her contributions had major significance in the counseling field, such as widespread implementation or authoritative citations. 2. The proposed salary of $60,000 was near the median wage for school counselors, and a subsequent raise letter was submitted too late and not considered. 3. Patent applications and comparable evidence arguments were raised for the first time on appeal, post-petition-filing, and could not be considered; the petitioner also failed to explain why standard criteria did not apply. 4. The peer group consultation came from an advertising organization, which is not a qualifying peer group for someone working in education.

Takeaway: Testimonial letters must go beyond general praise and specifically demonstrate how a beneficiary's contributions have materially impacted or been widely adopted across the field. Comparable evidence and new salary evidence must be submitted before the denial stage, and peer group consultations must come from organizations actually operating in the beneficiary's field.

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-1A criteria.