AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision APR292021_02B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider granted in part and dismissed in part; prior denial…
Decision summary: AAO decision APR292021_02B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider granted in part and dismissed in part; prior denial remains (p. 5). AAO considered new evidence on membership/original-contributions issues but found no proper cause to reopen or reconsider the prior merits decision. Membership evidence did not show outstanding achievement-based admission; letters and research evidence did not establish original contributions of major significance or show prior decision error (pp. 3–5).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_with_motion_scope. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | APR292021_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | April 29, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences; petitioner is an assistant professor of computer science and information systems (p. 1). |
Procedural posture | Second motion to reopen and reconsider prior AAO decision; current motions challenge prior denial and dismissal history (pp. 1–3). |
Operative disposition | Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider granted in part and dismissed in part; prior denial remains (p. 5). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO considered new evidence on membership/original-contributions issues but found no proper cause to reopen or reconsider the prior merits decision. Membership evidence did not show outstanding achievement-based admission; letters and research evidence did not establish original contributions of major significance or show prior decision error (pp. 3–5).
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Source redacts university and research details; original petition merits were adjudicated earlier and are not freshly decided here."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: Motion cover; assistant professor in CS/information systems.; p2: Motion standards, procedural history and scope.; p3: Timeliness issue and motion analysis; history of original criteria findings.; p4: New membership evidence and prior contribution letters reviewed.; p5: Contribution and reconsideration arguments rejected; motions’ dispositions.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Procedural example on serial motions: new evidence and a request to revisit membership/contributions must meet motion standards and identify a real error or new fact. Eligible only as motion-procedure content, clearly distinguishing reopen dismissal from partial reconsideration disposition.
Editorial use note: Eligible only as motion-procedure content, clearly distinguishing reopen dismissal from partial reconsideration disposition.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Motion cover; assistant professor in CS/information systems.
PDF page 2 — Motion standards, procedural history and scope.
PDF page 3 — Timeliness issue and motion analysis; history of original criteria findings.
PDF page 4 — New membership evidence and prior contribution letters reviewed.
PDF page 5 — Contribution and reconsideration arguments rejected; motions’ dispositions.
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
Membership research
Original contributions of major significance research
Computing sector research
Teaching sector research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.