This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Director's revocation of the previously approved O-1A petition. The employment agreement was found to be fraudulent, the petitioning company was found to be a shell entity created solely to file the petition, and the beneficiary did not demonstrate eligibility under at least three evidentiary criteria.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A fitness management company filed an O-1A petition for a competitive bodybuilder claiming a $200,000 annual salary. After initial approval, USCIS investigations revealed the petitioning company was a shell entity created by the beneficiary and her attorney, the employment agreement was fraudulent, the beneficiary was self-employed rather than employed by the petitioner, and she was engaging in activities outside the scope of the petition. The Director revoked the approval and the AAO affirmed, finding the petitioner submitted only the same inadequate evidence on appeal without addressing the Director's specific findings. Of the four criteria claimed (awards, membership, published material, high salary), only the awards criterion was found satisfied, falling short of the three required. The case illustrates how fraudulent supporting documents and unresolved material inconsistencies can lead to revocation of a previously approved petition.
What failed: 1. The employment agreement was found to be fraudulent and the petitioning company was determined to be a shell entity, undermining the entire basis of the petition. 2. The beneficiary's own immigration filings in a separate proceeding showed self-employment and wages far below the claimed $200,000 salary, creating unresolved contradictions the petitioner could not explain. 3. Only one of the four claimed evidentiary criteria (awards) was met; membership, published material, and high salary all failed, leaving the petition two criteria short of the required three.
Takeaway: Petitioners must ensure the sponsoring employer is a legitimate, operational business with genuine employment terms, as USCIS will cross-check evidence across immigration proceedings and investigate inconsistencies. When a notice of intent to revoke is issued, the response must directly address each specific finding with independent, objective evidence — simply resubmitting the same documents without explaining the officer's errors will not overcome serious credibility findings.
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
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The employment agreement was found to be fraudulent and the petitioning company was determined to be a shell entity, undermining the entire basis of the petition
- The beneficiary's own immigration filings in a separate proceeding showed self-employment and wages far below the claimed $200,000 salary, creating unresolved contradictions the petitioner could not explain
- Only one of the four claimed evidentiary criteria (awards) was met
- membership, published material, and high salary all failed, leaving the petition two criteria short of the required three.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
MetDirector found awards criterion satisfied; this was the only criterion met.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metIFBB membership did not satisfy the membership criterion for an association requiring outstanding achievement.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles from MuscleMag and muscleinsider.com were deemed insufficient to satisfy the published material criterion.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metThe claimed $200,000 salary could not be credited because the employment agreement was found fraudulent and PayPal records did not show payments to the beneficiary.
Completed
I-129 filed
Competitive bodybuilder and sponsored athlete
Completed
Director — Revoked (Notice of Revocation issued after initial approval)
Initial decision: Revoked (Notice of Revocation issued after initial approval).
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-06-23
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Director's revocation of the previously approved O-1A petition. The employment agreement was found to be fraudulent, the petitioning company was found to be a shell entity created solely to file the petition, and the beneficiary did not demonstrate eligibility under at least three evidentiary criteria.
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.