How common are denied O-1 petitions?

O-1 petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the investment and advisory firm industry affect O-1 petition outcomes?

The investment and advisory firm sector has unique considerations for O-1 petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

dismissed O-1 RFE Issued

External Managers Evaluation Specialist

Investment And Advisory Firm · 2024-10-09

Decision Date

2024-10-09

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

2 of 3 criteria met

Evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media (Met)

The Director determined the Beneficiary fulfilled this criterion, and this finding was not challenged or re-evaluated on appeal, thus it is considered met.

Evidence that the alien has performed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Met)

The Director determined the Beneficiary fulfilled this criterion, and this finding was not challenged or re-evaluated on appeal, thus it is considered met.

Published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought (Not Met)

The Petitioner claimed eligibility based on articles discussing deals the Beneficiary worked on, but USCIS found none of the articles mentioned the Beneficiary directly. Additionally, many translations were not properly certified, and required dates and authors were missing. A request to consider comparable evidence was rejected as it was not raised at initial filing or RFE response.

Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Not Met)

The Petitioner submitted testimonial letters praising the Beneficiary's work and contributions to his employers. However, USCIS determined these letters made broad claims and focused on impact on individual companies rather than demonstrating major significance to the overall field.

Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services (Not Met)

The Petitioner provided salary data and recruiter letters, but USCIS found the comparative data (Glassdoor, Rosstat) insufficient to establish a high salary relative to top earners in similar positions, and recruiter opinions lacked corroboration. U.S. salary data was deemed irrelevant for a non-U.S. based position.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide a properly formatted advisory opinion, as the submitted letters did not describe the duties or state if the position required extraordinary ability, and new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered. Furthermore, the Beneficiary did not meet the required three O-1 criteria; claims for published material about the alien and original contributions of major significance were rejected due to lack of direct mention of the Beneficiary in articles and insufficient explanation of field-wide significance in testimonial letters. The high remuneration criterion was also not met due to inadequate comparative data for the Beneficiary's salary in Russia and the irrelevance of U.S. salary data.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested a proper advisory opinion and further evidence for published material about the Beneficiary, original contributions of major significance, and high remuneration. The Petitioner responded by submitting expert advisory opinions, articles, testimonial letters, and salary data, arguing that no appropriate peer group existed and that the submitted evidence satisfied the criteria.

RFE Targets

advisory opinionPublished material in professional or major trade publications or other major media about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is soughtEvidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the fieldEvidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services

Evidence

Evidence Types

Media Coverage

Reference Letters Dependent

Original Contributions

High Salary

Scholarly Articles

Critical Employment Role

Achievements

participated in $20 billion worth of transactions
developed a restructuring mechanism that had never been used in Russia before
advised mobile telecom carrier in Russia on a series of acquisition transactions
largest contributor to revenue in 2011 for a reorganization and merger
advised on $1.6 bln asset swap
recouped over $35 million losses for an individual investor through 'prescient' forecasting
developed an innovative solution to the initial price offering of shares in mobile operator

Similar Cases

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.

Software Developer

Software

USCIS O-1 rfe dismissed

2024-11-13

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight O-1 evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the 'awards' criterion was not met as the submitted award lacked national/international recognition for excellence and objective measurement criteria. The 'membership' criterion was not met as associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts. The 'published material about' criterion was not met as articles were either not about the Beneficiary, were submitted after filing, or were self-authored. The 'judging work of others' criterion was not met as mentoring roles were not equivalent to judging, lacking specificity and detail. Finally, 'original contributions of major significance' were not established, as testimonial letters made broad claims about company impact rather than field-wide significance and lacked specific details. Claims for high salary, scholarly articles, employment in a critical or essential capacity, and comparable evidence were not considered as they were raised for the first time on appeal or not pursued.

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.

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.

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 Financial Services cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-10-09.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed

RFE Issued

Criteria Met 2 / 3

Evidence Types 6

O-1 Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 83

Success Rate 68.7%

Sustained 57

Dismissed 26

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