AAO research
EB-1A appeal timeliness — AAO decision APR192011_02B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director for possible motion consideration. Review…
Decision summary: AAO decision APR192011_02B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director for possible motion consideration. Only timeliness/motion treatment is determined; merits not reached (pp. 2–3).
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | APR192011_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | April 19, 2011 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; field not stated in the opinion. |
Procedural posture | Director issued decision April 5, 2010 and instructed appeal to be filed with Texas Service Center. Counsel sent appeal to AAO May 6; AAO returned it May 7; Texas received it May 12, 37 days after decision. AAO rejected as untimely but returned matter to Director to determine whether late appeal met motion requirements. |
Operative disposition | Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director for possible motion consideration. |
Final-merits status | not reached |
What the AAO decision addressed
Only timeliness/motion treatment is determined; merits not reached (pp. 2–3).
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 considered |
Membership | not considered |
Published material about the person | not considered |
Judging the work of others | not considered |
Original contributions of major significance | not considered |
Scholarly authorship | not considered |
Artistic display or showcases | not considered |
Leading or critical role | not considered |
High salary or remuneration | not considered |
Commercial success in the performing arts | not considered |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
Only timeliness/motion treatment is determined; merits not reached (pp. 2–3).
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Do not equate with a merits remand; possible motion treatment is for Director to decide.
Editorial use note: Eligible for carefully scoped, citation-rich content; identify nonprecedent status and procedural posture.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Cover/instructions dated Apr. 19, 2011; Texas Service Center EB-1A case.
PDF page 3 — Explains possible motion treatment by Director and order rejecting appeal.
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Untimely research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.