AAO research
EB-1A withdrawal and mootness — AAO decision AUG272020_02B2203: Service Center decision withdrawn; matter remanded for a new decision. Review source…
Decision summary: The AAO {‘outcome’: ‘Service Center decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision.’, ‘basis’: ‘SCOPS did not sufficiently address the petitioner’s evidence and claims; the record required criterion-specific analysis and, if threshold is met, a final-merits determination.’, ‘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 | AUG272020_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2020-08-27 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Nonprecedent appeal from SCOPS’ denial/revocation decision. AAO found the decision insufficiently addressed the petitioner’s claims and evidence regarding claimed awards, published material, original contributions, and patent/citation evidence, and withdrew the decision and Remanded. AAO states the Director had found two other criteria satisfied: authorship of scholarly articles and leading or critical role. Remand directs a new decision addressing the record and any additional criteria; if at least three are established, assess totality at final merits.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; classification: revocation_decision_Decision withdrawn and matter Remanded_for_reassessment; director_findings: Nonprecedent appeal from SCOPS’ denial/revocation decision. AAO found the decision insufficiently addressed the petitioner’s claims and evidence regarding claimed awards, published material, original contributions, and patent/citation evidence, and withdrew the decision and Remanded. AAO states the Director had found two other criteria satisfied: authorship of scholarly articles and leading or critical role. Remand directs a new decision addressing the record and any additional criteria; if at least three are established, assess totality at final merits. |
Operative disposition | {‘outcome’: ‘Service Center decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision.’, ‘basis’: ‘SCOPS did not sufficiently address the petitioner’s evidence and claims; the record required criterion-specific analysis and, if threshold is met, a final-merits determination.’, ‘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': 'criterion_analysis_remand', 'aggregation_valid': True, 'use': 'Useful source for a remand/decision-writing explainer and claims about criterion-specific analysis; not an approval or resolved merits example.', '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.