AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision FEB052020_01B2203: Motion dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Motion dismissed The petitioner did not show proper cause to reopen or reconsider; two prior criterion findings remained, and the original appeal denial stood.
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: Printed decision identifies an EB-1A extraordinary-ability proceeding.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB052020_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 5, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO decision; EB-1A unless marked out of scope below. |
Procedural posture | Combined motion to reopen and reconsider the prior appeal decision; both motions dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Motion dismissed |
Final-merits status | The motion decision reviews whether the prior decision should be reopened/reconsidered; it does not provide a fresh final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner did not show proper cause to reopen or reconsider; two prior criterion findings remained, and the original appeal denial stood.
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 | |
Membership | Not met — p. 5 |
Published material about the person | met — p. 4 |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 4 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 6 |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 7 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The prior appellate decision found only published material and scholarly authorship met among the seven criteria then claimed; the motion asserted those findings and other prior findings were wrong and newly claimed judging.; pages: 3; 4
claim: AAO found no basis on motion to alter the previous adverse findings for awards, membership, original contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary; it did not decide newly raised judging.; pages: 4; 5; 6; 7
claim: AAO dismissed both motions and did not conduct a new petition-wide final-merits determination.; pages: 8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Computing sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.