This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the contractual requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B), with serious unresolved inconsistencies and discrepancies in the employment contracts, salary figures, and evidence of actual employment. The AAO did not reach the merits of the extraordinary ability criteria.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A fitness management company filed an O-1A petition for a professional bodybuilder, but the petition was denied and the appeal dismissed due to fundamental contract deficiencies. The record contained two conflicting employment contracts listing different job titles and salaries ($200,000 vs. $80,000), and the beneficiary's own tax returns showed self-employment as a personal trainer rather than wages from the company. USCIS investigation revealed the company appeared to be a shell entity, the listed work address was a residential property, and the beneficiary had created a GoFundMe campaign for surgery costs despite the contract promising full health insurance. Because the Petitioner failed to resolve these material inconsistencies — and largely did not even contest the Director's specific findings on appeal — the AAO dismissed the appeal on the contract requirement alone, without reaching the extraordinary ability merits.
What failed: The Petitioner could not establish a valid employment contract due to two conflicting agreements with different salaries and job titles, neither of which aligned with the beneficiary's actual documented income as a self-employed personal trainer. The company itself appeared to be a shell entity with no verifiable business operations, a residential address, and no evidence of actually paying the beneficiary the contracted wages or providing health insurance. On appeal, the Petitioner failed to address or contest most of the Director's specific findings, resulting in those issues being deemed waived.
Takeaway: Petitioners must ensure complete consistency among all submitted documents — including contracts, Form I-129, cover letters, and financial records — and must specifically address every finding raised by the Director on appeal or risk those issues being deemed waived. A company petitioning on behalf of an athlete must demonstrate it is a genuine operational business entity, not a vehicle created solely to file the immigration petition.
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 Petitioner could not establish a valid employment contract due to two conflicting agreements with different salaries and job titles, neither of which aligned with the beneficiary's actual documented income as a self-employed personal trainer
- The company itself appeared to be a shell entity with no verifiable business operations, a residential address, and no evidence of actually paying the beneficiary the contracted wages or providing health insurance
- On appeal, the Petitioner failed to address or contest most of the Director's specific findings, resulting in those issues being deemed waived.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metIFBB membership found insufficient in prior appellate decision; issue reserved in current decision
Published material about the person
Not metArticles from MuscleMag and muscleinsider.com found insufficient in prior appellate decision; issue reserved in current decision
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metHigh salary criterion not met due to invalid/inconsistent Employment Agreement; issue reserved in current decision
Completed
I-129 filed
Professional bodybuilder and bodybuilding trainer
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-05-25
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the contractual requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B), with serious unresolved inconsistencies and discrepancies in the employment contracts, salary figures, and evidence of actual employment. The AAO did not reach the merits of the extraordinary ability 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.