AAO research
EB-1A motions to reconsider — AAO decision FEB112020_03B2203: Motion to reconsider dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB112020_03B2203: Motion to reconsider dismissed. 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.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_procedural_eb1a_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB112020_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2020-02-11 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Motion to reconsider dismissed. Petitioner again omitted the required statement about judicial proceedings; alternatively, did not show the prior decision misapplied law or misread evidence. Earlier appeal found judging met but fewer than three criteria; the cited scholarly-article and leadership arguments did not establish error.; citation_pages: 1; 2; classification: third_Motion to reconsider dismissed_filing_defect_and_no_error; director_findings: Director found no criteria, but AAO previously found the judging criterion met while affirming failure to meet the required three initial criteria. This third motion to reconsider reasserted omitted evidence. AAO stated prior decision analyzed the art-catalogue essay and found it neither scholarly nor published in professional/major trade media; also reviewed the beneficiary’s role leading a large art donation and found no specific evidence/law-policy error in that analysis. The petitioner did not explain errors for membership, original contributions, or display-of-work criteria. Motion dismissed both for missing required statement regarding judicial proceedings and, alternatively, failure to show prior legal/factual error. |
Operative disposition | {'outcome': 'Motion to reconsider dismissed.', 'basis': 'Petitioner again omitted the required statement about judicial proceedings; alternatively, did not show the prior decision misapplied law or misread evidence. Earlier appeal found judging met but fewer than three criteria; the cited scholarly-article and leadership arguments did not establish error.', 'citation_pages': [1, 2]} |
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 | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not reached — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'fit': 'criteria_specific_motion_record', 'aggregation_valid': True, 'use': 'Can support careful art-catalogue scholarly-publication and leading-role discussion, but findings are recounting prior decisions in a later procedural motion and are nonprecedent; limit to precisely cited points.', 'do_not_claim': ['Do not characterize a procedural dismissal, rejection, or remand as approval or a completed merits adjudication.', 'Do not infer criterion results beyond those expressly recited in the decision.', 'Do not treat remand as approval.', 'Do not treat explicitly nonprecedent decisions as binding authority.'], 'caveat': 'Judging was expressly found met in the earlier appeal and authorship was expressly found not met. For leading/critical role, the motion recounts the prior analysis without stating the criterion result; membership, original contributions, and display-of-work outcomes are not specified here. Final merits not reached.'}
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
Final Merits research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.