This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the combined motions to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new evidence or demonstrate that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law. The underlying petition remains denied.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The California Service Center denied the O-1A petition for a professional squash player, finding the beneficiary did not meet at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability in athletics. The AAO then summarily dismissed the petitioner's appeal because the appeal form did not identify any specific legal or factual error and no supplemental brief was received by the AAO. On combined motions to reopen and reconsider, the petitioner argued that the brief had been submitted with the initial appeal, but could not provide documentary proof such as a tracking receipt or cover letter. The AAO found counsel's unsubstantiated assertions insufficient and dismissed the motions, leaving the underlying denial intact. The case highlights the critical importance of following proper filing procedures and directing appellate submissions to the correct office.
What failed: 1. The appellate brief was sent to the USCIS Phoenix Lockbox instead of directly to the AAO, violating 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(viii), so the AAO never received it. 2. The Form I-290B appeal submission did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision, resulting in summary dismissal. 3. On motion, petitioner's counsel made unsubstantiated assertions that the brief had been included with the initial filing, but provided no documentary evidence (e.g., tracking receipt or cover letter) to corroborate this claim.
Takeaway: Always send supplemental appellate briefs and evidence directly to the AAO as required by regulation, and retain proof of delivery such as a tracking receipt. On the Form I-290B, explicitly identify each specific legal or factual error in the underlying decision to avoid summary dismissal.
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 appellate brief was sent to the USCIS Phoenix Lockbox instead of directly to the AAO, violating 8 C.F.R
- § 103.3(a)(2)(viii), so the AAO never received it
- The Form I-290B appeal submission did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision, resulting in summary dismissal
- On motion, petitioner's counsel made unsubstantiated assertions that the brief had been included with the initial filing, but provided no documentary evidence (e.g., tracking receipt or cover letter) to corroborate this claim.
Completed
I-129 filed
Professional squash player
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-10-29
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the combined motions to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new evidence or demonstrate that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law. The underlying petition remains denied.
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.