AAO research
EB-1A motions to reopen — AAO decision DEC152011_01B2203: Second motion to reopen dismissed; prior AAO decision affirmed and petition remains denied. AAO…
Decision summary: AAO decision DEC152011_01B2203: Second motion to reopen dismissed; prior AAO decision affirmed and petition remains denied. AAO also entered a separate finding of willful material misrepresentation. 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.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC152011_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2011-12-15 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition; artist; second motion to reopen following prior AAO appeal and motion decisions. |
Procedural posture | AAO considered a second motion to reopen. In November 2011, it issued a derogatory-information notice about evidence and gave the petitioner 15 days plus 3 days for mailing to respond; the decision states she did not respond. |
Operative disposition | Second motion to reopen dismissed; prior AAO decision affirmed and petition remains denied. AAO also entered a separate finding of willful material misrepresentation. |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
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-cited findings recorded in review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful for explaining the difference between dismissal of a motion for a filing defect and a separate alternative merits discussion, while keeping the separate misrepresentation finding distinct.
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
Performance sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.