AAO research
EB-1A withdrawal and mootness — AAO decision FEB072024_02B2203: Director’s decision withdrawn; matter remanded for a new decision. Review source status…
Decision summary: The AAO {‘outcome’: ‘Director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision.’, ‘basis’: ‘The Director relied on evidence from a prior petition and did not adequately review the evidence submitted with the current petition/RFE response; source cover classification also conflicts with the body.’, ‘citation_pages’: [1, 2, 3]} The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
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: identity_ambiguous_hold. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB072024_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2024-02-07 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Nonprecedent appeal. The cover labels the Form I-140 as a National Interest Waiver, but the substantive decision repeatedly identifies the requested classification as EB-1A under INA §203(b)(1)(A), analyzes EB-1A criteria, and discusses a prior separate NIW filing. The Director found scholarly authorship and leading/critical roles met but denied after finding fewer than three criteria; AAO found the Director improperly relied on the earlier petition’s evidence and did not adequately evaluate the current record, withdrew the decision, and Remanded.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; classification: appeal_Decision withdrawn and matter Remanded_conflicting_form_label_and_eb1a_body; director_findings: Nonprecedent appeal. The cover labels the Form I-140 as a National Interest Waiver, but the substantive decision repeatedly identifies the requested classification as EB-1A under INA §203(b)(1)(A), analyzes EB-1A criteria, and discusses a prior separate NIW filing. The Director found scholarly authorship and leading/critical roles met but denied after finding fewer than three criteria; AAO found the Director improperly relied on the earlier petition’s evidence and did not adequately evaluate the current record, withdrew the decision, and Remanded. |
Operative disposition | {‘outcome’: ‘Director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision.’, ‘basis’: ‘The Director relied on evidence from a prior petition and did not adequately review the evidence submitted with the current petition/RFE response; source cover classification also conflicts with the body.’, ‘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 | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
true
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'fit': 'classification_label_conflict_and_prior_petition_evidence', 'aggregation_valid': False, 'use': 'Hold from publication/comparison pending reconciliation of the cover’s NIW label with the body’s explicit EB-1A classification. Once reconciled, potentially useful as a remand about evaluating the correct petition’s record.', '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.', 'Do not publish or compare the two identity-held records until the cover/body classification discrepancy is reconciled.'], 'caveat': 'Use only source-specific claims with citations and distinguish current holdings from prior decisions; identity-held records must not be used for publication or aggregation.'}
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
Remand research
Waiv research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.