This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary met only one of the required three evidentiary criteria (critical or essential capacity), and the overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A horse breeding business filed an O-1A petition for its stallion manager, claiming extraordinary ability in athletics (equine industry). The California Service Center denied the petition, finding no criteria met. On appeal, the AAO found the Beneficiary met only the critical/essential capacity criterion based on letters and documentation of the organization's distinguished reputation. The AAO rejected claims for prizes/awards (comparable evidence argument failed), membership, published material, judging, and high salary — all due to insufficient documentation. Because only one of the three required criteria was satisfied, and the overall record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of the field, the appeal was dismissed.
What worked: The Petitioner successfully established the Beneficiary's critical or essential capacity for a distinguished organization by submitting letters describing the importance of his stallion manager role and documentation of the breeding operation's strong reputation.
What failed: 1) Comparable evidence for the prizes/awards criterion was rejected because the Petitioner did not show stallion managers cannot receive such awards. 2) Salary criterion failed because no comparative salary data was submitted in response to the RFE, and ZipRecruiter data submitted only on appeal was not considered. 3) Published material criterion failed because articles either lacked author identification, lacked proof of major publication status, or were filed after the petition date.
Takeaway: When a specific evidentiary criterion is raised in an RFE, petitioners must respond with all supporting evidence at that stage — salary comparisons, publication credentials, and membership requirements cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal. Additionally, comparable evidence arguments require affirmative proof that the criterion structurally cannot apply to the occupation, not merely that the beneficiary did not receive an award.
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.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The Petitioner successfully established the Beneficiary's critical or essential capacity for a distinguished organization by submitting letters describing the importance of his stallion manager role and documentation of the breeding operation's strong reputation.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- 1) Comparable evidence for the prizes/awards criterion was rejected because the Petitioner did not show stallion managers cannot receive such awards
- 2) Salary criterion failed because no comparative salary data was submitted in response to the RFE, and ZipRecruiter data submitted only on appeal was not considered
- 3) Published material criterion failed because articles either lacked author identification, lacked proof of major publication status, or were filed after the petition date.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metPetitioner sought comparable evidence but failed to show the criterion does not apply to stallion managers or that letters of support are equivalent to nationally recognized prizes/awards.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metWebpage listed Beneficiary as a contact but did not confirm membership; Petitioner failed to show the association requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles submitted lacked identified authors, lacked proof of major/trade publication status, or were filed after the petition date.
Judging the work of others
Not metPetitioner claimed consultation work constituted judging but provided no documentation identifying whose work was judged or specific instances.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Reversed in their favorAAO found Beneficiary met the critical/essential capacity criterion (O-1 equivalent criterion 7); Director had denied all criteria but AAO reversed on this one.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metContract showed $75,000/year but no comparative salary data was timely submitted; ZipRecruiter data submitted on appeal was not considered as it was not presented to the Director after RFE.
Completed
I-129 filed
Stallion manager at a horse breeding business
Completed
California Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-06-02
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary met only one of the required three evidentiary criteria (critical or essential capacity), and the overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.
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.