This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the second motion to reconsider because the Petitioner simply restated prior arguments without identifying any specific error in the application of law or policy, which is required for a motion to reconsider.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
An artist representative and production company filed an O-1B petition for an actress seeking extraordinary achievement classification in motion picture or television. The petition was denied by the Director, the appeal was dismissed, a first motion to reconsider was dismissed, and now a second motion to reconsider was also dismissed. The AAO found that the Petitioner merely restated prior arguments without pointing to any specific error in the application of law or policy, which is the legal requirement for a successful motion to reconsider. The decision reinforces that motions to reconsider require identification of specific legal or policy errors, not simply a reargument of the merits.
What failed: The Petitioner failed to identify any specific legal or policy error in the AAO's prior decision, instead just restating the same arguments. A claim for the commercial success criterion was raised for the first time on appeal rather than before the Director, so it was not considered. No evidence submitted in support of the six O-1B evidentiary criteria was found sufficient at any stage of proceedings.
Takeaway: A motion to reconsider requires citing specific legal authority, regulations, statutes, or precedent decisions showing the prior decision was legally wrong — simply rearguing the facts and evidence already considered will always fail. Petitioners should ensure all evidence and claims are presented at the earliest opportunity, especially before a Director's denial, to preserve them for appeal.
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 Petitioner failed to identify any specific legal or policy error in the AAO's prior decision, instead just restating the same arguments
- A claim for the commercial success criterion was raised for the first time on appeal rather than before the Director, so it was not considered
- No evidence submitted in support of the six O-1B evidentiary criteria was found sufficient at any stage of proceedings.
Completed
I-129 filed
Actress in motion picture or television productions
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-03-24
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the second motion to reconsider because the Petitioner simply restated prior arguments without identifying any specific error in the application of law or policy, which is required for a motion to reconsider.
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.