This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet even one of the three claimed O-1B evidentiary criteria. The published materials submitted were radio station promotional content, not critical reviews or published materials about the beneficiary's achievements.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A heating oil company petitioned for O-1B classification for a Salvadoran radio DJ/broadcaster to work as a marketing general manager. The petition was originally filed as O-1A, then amended to O-1B during the RFE process. The petitioner claimed three O-1B criteria, including national/international recognition via published materials, but submitted only radio station promotional announcements from MAS newspaper rather than genuine critical reviews or articles about the beneficiary. The AAO found this evidence insufficient on multiple grounds: the materials were promotional, not analytical; some items did not even mention the beneficiary; and the petitioner failed to establish MAS qualifies as a major publication. Because the petitioner could not satisfy even one of the three required criteria, the appeal was dismissed without reaching the totality-of-evidence step.
What failed: 1. The published materials from MAS newspaper were radio station promotional advertisements announcing broadcast schedules, not critical reviews or substantive articles about the beneficiary's achievements. 2. The petitioner made no effort to establish MAS as a 'major' publication by submitting circulation or readership data. 3. A new criterion claim (leading/starring participant) was raised for the first time on appeal and could not be considered.
Takeaway: For the O-1B published-materials criterion, petitioners must submit genuine editorial or critical coverage that discusses the beneficiary's accomplishments — promotional materials issued by the beneficiary's own employer will not suffice. Petitioners should also document the publication's reach and prestige with verifiable circulation or readership data.
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
- The published materials from MAS newspaper were radio station promotional advertisements announcing broadcast schedules, not critical reviews or substantive articles about the beneficiary's achievements
- The petitioner made no effort to establish MAS as a 'major' publication by submitting circulation or readership data
- A new criterion claim (leading/starring participant) was raised for the first time on appeal and could not be considered.
Completed
I-129 filed
Radio DJ and broadcaster sought to work as a marketing general manager
Completed
California Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-03-23
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet even one of the three claimed O-1B evidentiary criteria. The published materials submitted were radio station promotional content, not critical reviews or published materials about the beneficiary's achievements.
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.