O-1 uses a similar criteria framework to EB-1A but for a temporary stay — officers scrutinize the same evidence differently.
Remanded · 2025 Income Certification with monthly invoices showing the Beneficiary earned approximately 40 times the highest average annual salary for tattoo artists in Argentina (around 13,098,692 ARS vs. a 325,800 ARS benchmark), establishing the high salary criterion.
Dismissed · 2016 Competition awards including first place at 2013 amateur event, second place at another event, and third place in Thailand in 2012, found sufficient to satisfy the significant recognition criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5)
Dismissed · 2017 Testimonial evidence from owner of Brazilian restoration company confirming Beneficiary held a critical role and that company had a distinguished reputation in Brazil (satisfying the past component of the lead/critical role criterion)
Dismissed · 2021 Evidence that the Beneficiary performed in a lead or starring role in various productions and events was accepted as sufficient for that part of criterion (B)(1), but the events themselves lacked demonstrated distinguished reputation
Dismissed · 2021 Beneficiary's selection to national teams for World Equestrian Games (2010, 2014, 2018) and World Endurance Championships (2012), supported by statement from national federation secretary general, satisfied the membership criterion.
Dismissed · 2017 Reference letters submitted in lieu of a peer/labor organization consultation were found insufficient — they were not from experts in biology education, did not detail the beneficiary's proposed duties as a biology teacher, and focused on past research and afterschool curriculum work rather than the teaching position.
Dismissed · 2021 Letters, programs, biographic material, articles, and a Wikipedia screenshot regarding the Beneficiary's participation with the professional league Dream Team — failed to show membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts
Dismissed · 2016 Nomination for an unnamed film festival award and receipt of a development prize, found insufficient to qualify as significant national or international awards comparable to an Academy Award without documentation of the selection process or mainstream recognition
Dismissed · 2023 Recommendation and testimonial letters — not qualifying evidence under the lead/starring participant criterion (8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(1)), which requires critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements
Dismissed · 2018 Recommendation letters from food and beverage manager and Association of Head Chefs president — did not constitute critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or endorsements as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(1)
Director incorrectly found that the beneficiary performed in a lead, starring, or critical role for distinguished organizations under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3); AAO withdrew that finding because the evidence did not distinguish the beneficiary's role from other employees or show her impact on the organizations.
Director incorrectly assessed the published material criterion by requiring articles to address the level of the beneficiary's expertise rather than simply whether the material was about the beneficiary in major media (AAO agreed with petitioner on this narrow point but still found criterion not met on other grounds)
Director applied an incorrect standard for the published materials criterion (8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2)) by requiring that materials show how the beneficiary's work 'propelled' her to national or international recognition, rather than simply requiring published materials by or about her in qualifying outlets.
Director granted the lead/starring participant criterion (8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(1)) without adequate discussion; AAO withdrew this finding because the petitioner did not submit evidence that the beneficiary would prospectively serve in a lead or starring role in events with a distinguished reputation.
Director incorrectly evaluated the published material criterion by focusing on the Beneficiary's level of expertise rather than whether the articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or major media — AAO agreed the expertise level was not the right standard at the initial evidentiary step.
A squash club's motions to reopen and reconsider an O-1A denial for a professional squash player were dismissed because
An O-1B petition for a Taiwanese music instructor and electronic composer was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to
The AAO dismissed the appeal of a professional Armenian boxer seeking O-1A status, finding he met only one of the requir
A school's O-1 petition for a table tennis coach was dismissed because the evidence failed to satisfy even three of the
AAO dismissed appeal by a fashion model agency after finding the agency submitted a support letter falsely stamped with
The AAO dismissed an appeal by a taekwondo school seeking to extend its headmaster's O-1 visa, finding the Beneficiary f
See all 288 O-1 cases →