AAO research
EB-1A remand — AAO decision AUG282020_01B2203: Remanded. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Remanded AAO Remanded for a new decision addressing the evidence and the petition’s classification; it did not decide whether the claimed criteria were met.
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_EB1A_AAO_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | AUG282020_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | August 28, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | Remanded for new decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal from denial; AAO found the Director did not adequately address the claimed criteria and petitioner’s classification argument. |
Operative disposition | Remanded |
Final-merits status | Not reached; remand for criterion-level analysis. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO Remanded for a new decision addressing the evidence and the petition’s classification; it did not decide whether the claimed criteria were met.
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 |
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 |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Cover identifies petitioner and appeal.; pages: 1
claim: AAO reviews the claimed awards, published material, contributions, and role evidence and explains gaps in the Director’s analysis.; pages: 2
claim: AAO discusses the petitioner’s classification argument and required consideration of the record.; pages: 3
claim: AAO withdraws/remands for a new decision; it does not decide eligibility.; pages: 4
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_for_narrow_fact_grounded_content: True; must_preserve_procedural_posture: True; recommended_use: Useful procedural example about reasoned criterion analysis and classification changes in a sports-marketing petition; not a substantive favorable/denial precedent for any criterion.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
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
Published material about the person research
Leading or critical role research
Athletics sector research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.