AAO research
EB-1A leading or critical role — AAO decision FEB192016_01B2203: Motion to reopen denied. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB192016_01B2203: Motion to reopen denied. New evidence did not establish eligibility at the time of filing or satisfy criteria; later conference invitation was post-filing, judging/leading-role evidence and expert letters were insufficient, and the filing did not show proper basis to reopen. Reconsideration issue not separately granted.
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_procedural. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB192016_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 19, 2016 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; motion decision |
Procedural posture | Motion to reopen following prior EB-1A appeal and motion dismissal; petitioner also asserts selective membership and critical/leading role. |
Operative disposition | Motion to reopen denied. |
Final-merits status | underlying merits not reopened; motion denied |
What the AAO decision addressed
New evidence did not establish eligibility at the time of filing or satisfy criteria; later conference invitation was post-filing, judging/leading-role evidence and expert letters were insufficient, and the filing did not show proper basis to reopen. Reconsideration issue not separately granted.
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not met — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Underlying merits decisions are referenced but not reproduced in full; this source supports only the motion analysis."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Matter of A-K-B is a motion to reopen; petitioner is a “dream expert” in dream psychology.; pages: 1
claim: Motion evidence includes a later conference invitation, alleged judging and role evidence, and general letters.; pages: 1; 2
claim: AAO finds no new facts establishing eligibility at filing; judging/role and membership requirements are unmet.; pages: 2; 3
claim: Generic expert letters and later evidence do not establish the prior decision should be reopened; motion denied.; pages: 3; 4
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_procedural_context_only
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 2 — Motion standard, filing-date test, and judging/role arguments.
PDF page 3 — Membership and generic-support-letter evidence.
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
Leading or critical role research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.