Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial, which was based solely on a finding that the petitioner submitted a falsified document. The AAO found the discrepancy was not willful and remanded for a new merits determination on the beneficiary's extraordinary ability.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A fashion model agency filed an O-1B petition on behalf of a fashion model. The Vermont Service Center denied the petition after discovering that a recommendation letter bore the signature stamp of a person who had left the issuing company years earlier, concluding it was a falsified document. On appeal, the AAO found the petitioner's explanation credible: a current authorized employee with the same first name as the former employee had authorized the letter, and the petitioner accidentally used the wrong rubber stamp. Because the Director never reached the merits of the beneficiary's extraordinary ability, the AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a full merits adjudication. The case illustrates that a finding of document falsification requires proof of willful misrepresentation, not merely a discrepancy.
What worked: The petitioner submitted a clarifying letter from the current authorized company employee confirming he had approved the letter and that the wrong stamp was used accidentally. The petitioner also provided verification letters from the other recommendation letter authors and from prospective U.S. employers, addressing the Director's broader credibility concerns.
What failed: The Director's initial denial failed because it did not adequately weigh the petitioner's explanation and relied too heavily on the absence of explicit pre-submission contact evidence in one of the NOID responses, without waiting for the supplementary clarification letter provided on appeal.
Takeaway: When a document discrepancy arises, petitioners should immediately obtain direct written confirmation from the relevant third party explaining the error in detail, as a credible and specific explanation of an accidental clerical mistake can overcome a falsification finding. Agencies using signature stamp systems should document authorization procedures carefully to avoid confusion.
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
- The petitioner submitted a clarifying letter from the current authorized company employee confirming he had approved the letter and that the wrong stamp was used accidentally
- The petitioner also provided verification letters from the other recommendation letter authors and from prospective U.S
- employers, addressing the Director's broader credibility concerns.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Director's initial denial failed because it did not adequately weigh the petitioner's explanation and relied too heavily on the absence of explicit pre-submission contact evidence in one of the NOID responses, without waiting for the supplementary clarification letter provided on appeal.
Completed
I-129 filed
Fashion model
Completed
Vermont Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2016-05-25
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial, which was based solely on a finding that the petitioner submitted a falsified document. The AAO found the discrepancy was not willful and remanded for a new merits determination on the beneficiary's extraordinary ability.
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.