AAO research
EB-1A withdrawal and mootness — AAO decision FEB242005_03B2203: Director’s decision withdrawn; appeal sustained and petition approved. Review source…
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB242005_03B2203: Director’s decision withdrawn; appeal sustained and petition approved. 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 | FEB242005_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2005-02-02 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Appeal from denial of EB-1A petition; de novo AAO review.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; classification: Appeal from denial of EB-1A petition; de novo AAO review.; director_findings: Only as described in the decision; underlying merits are not inferred for motion or remand outcomes. |
Operative disposition | {'outcome': 'Director’s decision withdrawn; appeal sustained and petition approved.', 'basis': 'AAO states petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria and had sustained acclaim; it cites extensive advertising achievement, judged work, recognition and high-level creative responsibility, and finds the petitioner established eligibility to continue in the field.', 'citation_pages': [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]} |
Final-merits status | AAO concludes the record establishes sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability; appeal sustained and petition approved. |
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 | met — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not considered — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'eligible_for_narrow_comparison': True, 'fit': 'Narrow historical comparison for advertising/creative-direction evidence, especially awards/judging/leadership and sustained acclaim.', 'caveats': '2005 decision applies an older regulatory/precedential context and is nonprecedent; do not treat as current categorical standard.'}
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
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.