Visalytics
Visalytics
dismissed O-1

Financial Vice President

Design, Development, And Customer Service/Account Management For Original Equipment Manufacturers · 2025-02-20

Decision Date
2025-02-20
Location
South Carolina
This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

1 of 3 criteria met
Critical Employment Role (Met)

The Director determined the Beneficiary fulfilled this criterion, indicating a critical or essential capacity for the employer, though the AAO did not re-evaluate this point as it was not appealed by the Petitioner.

Awards or Prizes (Not Met)

The Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, or that the submitted 'Award' qualified as comparable evidence.

Membership in Associations (Not Met)

The Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, nor did it establish that serving as a financial vice president was comparable evidence.

Judging the Work of Others (Not Met)

The Petitioner's assertion that no panels of executives evaluate others' work was unsupported, and involvement in bank negotiations was not shown to be comparable to judging others' work.

Original Contributions of Major Significance (Not Met)

The Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary's work, such as overseeing construction or approving contracts, resulted in original contributions of major significance to the overall field, rather than just to the Petitioner's business.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight O-1 evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the AAO found the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for awards, memberships, judging, or original contributions, including through comparable evidence. Although the Director initially found one criterion (critical or essential capacity) met, this was insufficient to satisfy the minimum requirement of three criteria.

Evidence

Evidence Types
Awards
Professional Memberships
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Critical Employment Role

Similar Cases

Others

Entertainment · Colombia

USCIS O-1 rfe dismissed
2024-10-15
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. Specifically, the Petitioner did not provide adequate documentation for future lead/starring roles in distinguished productions, failed to show national/international recognition through major publications, did not establish future critical roles for distinguished organizations, and presented awards as certificates rather than published reports of commercial success. The AAO declined to review the Director's favorable finding on high salary or other criteria, as the overall threshold of three criteria was not met.

Research Fellow

Consulting

USCIS O-1 dismissed
2024-09-19
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight O-1 evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the AAO found that published material about the alien was not met as the evidence only showed authorship or citations, not material *about* the alien. Original contributions of major significance were not established as citations were not shown to be unusually high or to represent major impact, and testimonial letters lacked specific detail on major influence. Critical employment roles were also not met as letters did not sufficiently elaborate on the significant importance of the Beneficiary's contributions to the organizations.

Analyst

Software

USCIS O-1 dismissed
2024-08-29
The motion to reopen was dismissed as untimely, filed 77 days after the appeal dismissal, exceeding the 33-day limit. The Petitioner's excuse for untimeliness, lack of notice to prior counsel, was rejected because the record lacked a properly executed Form G-28, making the Petitioner self-represented for the appeal and motion. Therefore, the delay was not considered reasonable or beyond the Petitioner's control. Furthermore, the motion to reopen did not state new facts relating to the AAO's summary dismissal of the appeal, instead focusing on the Director's initial findings, which was outside the scope of the motion. The motion to reconsider was also dismissed as untimely, as there is no authority to extend its 33-day time limit.

Designer

Architecture · Russia

USCIS O-1 rfe dismissed
Florida 2024-04-25
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary met at least three of the regulatory criteria, failing to prove the 'lead or starring participant' and 'critical role' requirements. The Petitioner's attempt to use scholarly articles as comparable evidence for commercial success was rejected. Furthermore, the Petitioner is no longer a valid United States employer due to corporate dissolution.

Frequently Asked Questions

A dismissed O-1 petition means USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. Common reasons include weak documentation, failure to meet the required number of criteria, or insufficient evidence of the claimed qualifications. Petitioners can refile with stronger evidence or explore alternative visa categories.

Browse More Cases

More dismissed cases More Automotive cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2025-02-20.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed
Criteria Met 1 / 3
Evidence Types 5

O-1 Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 83
Success Rate 68.7%
Sustained 57
Dismissed 26

Related Pages

O-1 Overview All O-1 Cases O-1 Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist