All Cases

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.