This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner (an agent) failed to establish it qualified as a U.S. agent under the applicable regulations. The agent agreement did not meet the regulatory requirements for any of the three recognized agent categories.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
An agent filed an O-1A petition on behalf of an animal science researcher, but the Vermont Service Center denied the petition partly on the ground that the Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements to act as a U.S. agent. On appeal, the AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the agent agreement did not show dual representation of both the Beneficiary and employers, but nevertheless found the Petitioner still failed to qualify under any recognized U.S. agent category. The agent agreement did not specify wages the Petitioner would pay the Beneficiary, undermining the 'actual employer' basis; the Petitioner disclaimed dual representation, eliminating the second basis; and no employer-authorized contracts were submitted to establish the third basis. Because the Petitioner could not establish standing to file as a U.S. agent, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability evidence.
What failed: The agent agreement failed to specify wages the Petitioner would pay the Beneficiary, which was required to show the Petitioner functioned as an employer. No contracts between the Beneficiary and prospective employers were submitted, and the Petitioner explicitly disclaimed acting as a dual representative, eliminating all three possible bases for qualifying as a U.S. agent under the regulations.
Takeaway: When filing an O-1 petition through a U.S. agent rather than a direct employer, the agent must clearly establish one of the three regulatory bases for agent status—including a compensation-specifying contract if acting as employer, or written employer authorizations if acting for multiple employers. Failing to nail down this procedural foundation can result in dismissal before the beneficiary's qualifications are ever reviewed.
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 agent agreement failed to specify wages the Petitioner would pay the Beneficiary, which was required to show the Petitioner functioned as an employer
- No contracts between the Beneficiary and prospective employers were submitted, and the Petitioner explicitly disclaimed acting as a dual representative, eliminating all three possible bases for qualifying as a U.S
- agent under the regulations.
Petitioner's concession on appeal that the advisory opinion requirement had been satisfied (accepted by Director on motion)
Agent-Researcher Representation Agreement: did not specify wages offered to the Beneficiary by the Petitioner and failed to show the Petitioner functioning as an employer
Itinerary listing 19 anticipated events: no evidence from any listed organizations confirming their intent to use the Beneficiary's services or awareness of the agent agreement
Claim that the Petitioner qualifies as a U.S. agent representing both employer and beneficiary: explicitly disclaimed by the Petitioner, and no contracts between the Beneficiary and prospective employers were submitted
The Director incorrectly found the agent agreement showed the Petitioner would represent both the Beneficiary and the employers; the AAO agreed the agreement did not indicate dual representation, but still found the Petitioner failed to qualify as a U.S. agent on other grounds.
Completed
I-129 filed
Animal science researcher
Completed
Vermont Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-10-02
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner (an agent) failed to establish it qualified as a U.S. agent under the applicable regulations. The agent agreement did not meet the regulatory requirements for any of the three recognized agent categories.
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.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee