AAO research
EB-1A withdrawal and mootness — AAO decision APR072026_05B2203: SCOPS decision withdrawn; matter remanded for a new decision. Review source status…
Decision summary: The AAO {‘outcome’: ‘SCOPS decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision.’, ‘basis’: ‘The decision did not sufficiently address material claims/evidence and conflated patent citations with citations to written work; remand requires adequate analysis, then final merits if the three-criterion threshold is met.’, ‘citation_pages’: [1, 2, 3]} The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
Source reviewed: This page summarizes the specific AAO source and posture recorded in the completed source-review tracker. It does not turn a nonprecedent decision into a general rule.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_procedural_eb1a_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | APR072026_05B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | Not stated in normalized review fields |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Nonprecedent appeal of a SCOPS decision denying the EB-1A petition. AAO found SCOPS did not sufficiently address petitioner’s claims and evidence relating to awards, published material, and original contributions, including the distinction between citations to patents and citations to written work. It withdrew the decision and Remanded for a new decision. It instructed SCOPS to explain analysis of any additional criteria; if three are established, conduct final merits.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; classification: revocation_decision_Decision withdrawn and matter Remanded_for_reassessment; director_findings: Nonprecedent appeal of a SCOPS decision denying the EB-1A petition. AAO found SCOPS did not sufficiently address petitioner’s claims and evidence relating to awards, published material, and original contributions, including the distinction between citations to patents and citations to written work. It withdrew the decision and Remanded for a new decision. It instructed SCOPS to explain analysis of any additional criteria; if three are established, conduct final merits. |
Operative disposition | {‘outcome’: ‘SCOPS decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision.’, ‘basis’: ‘The decision did not sufficiently address material claims/evidence and conflated patent citations with citations to written work; remand requires adequate analysis, then final merits if the three-criterion threshold is met.’, ‘citation_pages’: [1, 2, 3]} |
Final-merits status | Not reached |
What the AAO decision addressed
The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
Criterion-by-criterion status in this source
These labels reproduce the source-review record. “Not considered,” “not reached,” and “not coded” do not mean the criterion failed. A Director finding recited as background is not an AAO holding unless the decision says so.
Criterion | Source-review status |
|---|---|
Awards | Not reached — source PDF |
Membership | Not reached — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not reached — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not reached — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not reached — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not reached — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not reached — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'fit': 'citation_evidence_and_remand', 'aggregation_valid': True, 'use': 'Potentially useful remand example on record-specific treatment of patent citations versus scholarly citations; as a 2026 decision verify date/current published status before use, and do not state petitioner met any criterion.', 'do_not_claim': ['Do not characterize a procedural dismissal, rejection, or remand as approval or a completed merits adjudication.', 'Do not infer criterion outcomes beyond those expressly stated.', 'Do not treat explicitly nonprecedent decisions as binding authority.'], 'caveat': 'Use only the source’s narrow finding and cited pages; historical decisions require date/context disclosure.'}
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
How to use this record
This is a historical, nonprecedent AAO decision about its own administrative record. It is not a prediction, success rate, or current filing instruction. Compare the issue and procedural stage before drawing an analogy. The current framework is in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2.
Related corpus research
Full-corpus research index
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Remand research
Revocation research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.