AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision FEB032023_01B2203: Appeal timeliness

EB-1A appeal timeliness — AAO decision FEB032023_01B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.

Decision summary: AAO decision FEB032023_01B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed. Petitioner cited spouse’s COVID-19 diagnosis and USPS mailing on deadline date. AAO found isolation through May 29 left 13 days before June 11 deadline and filing date was actual USCIS receipt June 13, not USPS submission June 11; late filing not shown reasonable and beyond control.

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_EB1A_nonprecedent_AAO_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID	FEB032023_01B2203
Decision date as printed	February 3, 2023
Classification / field stated in source	Not specified.
Procedural posture	Non-precedent motion to reopen relating to prior untimely motions; motion dismissed because delay not shown reasonable and beyond petitioner’s control.
Operative disposition	Motion to reopen dismissed.
Final-merits status	Not reached

What the AAO decision addressed

Petitioner cited spouse’s COVID-19 diagnosis and USPS mailing on deadline date. AAO found isolation through May 29 left 13 days before June 11 deadline and filing date was actual USCIS receipt June 13, not USPS submission June 11; late filing not shown reasonable and beyond control.

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 This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Published material about the person	Not reached — source PDF
Judging the work of others	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Leading or critical role	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
High salary or remuneration	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF

Source holds and limits

status:

Specific caveats recorded by the reviewer

Expressly non-precedent.
The AAO did not adjudicate EB-1A eligibility or decide the prior petition merits in this motion.

Source-cited findings recorded in review

claim: Decision labeled non-precedent, dated February 3, 2023; EB-1A petitioner filed motion concerning prior untimely motions.; pages: 1
claim: The motion invokes discretion to excuse late filing only if delay was both reasonable and beyond party’s control.; pages: 1
claim: Spouse diagnosed with COVID-19 May 24, 2022; June 11 motion deadline; cited isolation period through May 29 left 13 days to file.; pages: 1
claim: USPS package dropped June 11 with scheduled delivery June 13; filing date is receipt with required fee, so previous motion was two days late.; pages: 1; 2
claim: AAO found delay not shown reasonable and beyond control, dismissed motion and did not need to decide discretionary excusal.; pages: 2

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: narrow_procedural_explainer_only

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
Membership 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

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for FEB032023_01B2203