AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision FEB172005_03B2203: Motion granted; prior AAO decision affirmed; petition denied. Review source status…
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB172005_03B2203: Motion granted; prior AAO decision affirmed; petition denied. This is a second motion record, not a fresh appeal. AAO affirmed its prior finding that the petitioner had not established at least three criteria. It discussed the asserted comparable-evidence basis and found it inadequate. (pp. 2–10).
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_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB172005_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 17, 2005 (date in scanned header is degraded) |
Classification / field stated in source | Sciences; chemical engineer |
Procedural posture | Second motion to reopen and reconsider after prior AAO dismissal/affirmance; AAO grants motion procedurally, affirms prior appellate decision and denies petition. |
Operative disposition | Motion granted; prior AAO decision affirmed; petition denied. |
Final-merits status | No final-merits determination; the AAO affirmed the prior failure to meet the initial three-criterion threshold. (pp. 2, 9–10) |
What the AAO decision addressed
This is a second motion record, not a fresh appeal. AAO affirmed its prior finding that the petitioner had not established at least three criteria. It discussed the asserted comparable-evidence basis and found it inadequate. (pp. 2–10)
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 met — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
The scanned date is degraded and this source is procedurally derivative; do not treat it as an independent full reconsideration of every underlying petition fact. Underlying first AAO decision should be linked separately if available. (pp. 1–2)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: A cited procedural explainer can distinguish a second motion from a merits appeal and direct readers to the underlying decision when assessing the original evidence.
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
Judging the work of others research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.