This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding the beneficiary failed to meet any of the three claimed O-1B evidentiary criteria. The Director's favorable findings on two criteria were withdrawn, and the third (high salary) was also denied.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a retail music store, filed an O-1B petition for a band instrument repair technician. The California Service Center Director denied the petition but had found two criteria satisfied. On de novo review, the AAO withdrew both favorable findings and denied the third criterion (high salary) raised on appeal, concluding that zero criteria were met. The testimonial letters were heavily scripted with identical language and lacked specific supporting detail, severely undermining their probative value. Wage evidence was unsupported by a contract or reliable documentation. Because no initial evidentiary threshold was cleared, the AAO declined to conduct a totality/final merits analysis.
What failed: 1. Testimonial letters containing identical scripted questions and answers were found conclusory and lacking specific detail, disqualifying them for both the critical role and significant recognition criteria. 2. The high salary criterion failed because compensation claims were supported only by an unsigned internal document with no contract, no payroll records, and no corroborating business data. 3. Evidence of the petitioner's distinguished reputation was similarly undermined by boilerplate letters that discussed individual employees rather than the organization's reputation.
Takeaway: Avoid submitting multiple testimonial letters with identical scripted language — each letter should independently articulate specific, concrete details about the beneficiary's achievements and the author's basis for knowledge. For salary-based criteria, always include signed contracts, payroll records, or other independently verifiable financial documentation.
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
- Testimonial letters containing identical scripted questions and answers were found conclusory and lacking specific detail, disqualifying them for both the critical role and significant recognition criteria
- The high salary criterion failed because compensation claims were supported only by an unsigned internal document with no contract, no payroll records, and no corroborating business data
- Evidence of the petitioner's distinguished reputation was similarly undermined by boilerplate letters that discussed individual employees rather than the organization's reputation.
Completed
I-129 filed
Band instrument repair (BIR) technician
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-10-31
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding the beneficiary failed to meet any of the three claimed O-1B evidentiary criteria. The Director's favorable findings on two criteria were withdrawn, and the third (high salary) was also 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.