AAO research
EB-1A motions to reopen — AAO decision JAN072020_02B2203: Motion to reopen granted; appeal sustained. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN072020_02B2203: Motion to reopen granted; appeal sustained. 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 | JAN072020_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2020-01-07 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Motion to reopen granted; AAO sustains appeal after considering new evidence; citation_pages: 1; 3; 4; classification: Motion to reopen granted; AAO sustains appeal after considering new evidence; director_findings: See decision-specific basis; AAO findings distinguished from Director findings. |
Operative disposition | {'outcome': 'Motion to reopen granted; appeal sustained.', 'basis': 'Prior appeal found two criteria met (authorship of scholarly articles and leading/critical role). New, detailed evidence established original contributions of major significance. AAO then weighed the record and concluded the petitioner showed eligibility, sustained acclaim, and extraordinary ability.', 'citation_pages': [1, 3, 4]} |
Final-merits status | AAO found the petitioner eligible on totality, including senior diplomatic roles and scholarship; motion granted and appeal sustained. |
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 | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
Membership | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met — 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 | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'eligible_for_narrow_comparison': True, 'fit': 'Potential positive comparison for international-relations scholars with diplomatic/public-service leadership; distinguish motion-stage record supplementation from initial petition adjudication.', 'caveats': 'Nonprecedent, fact-specific decision. Remands and motion outcomes are not equivalent to new approvals. Exclude procedural motions from substantive criteria/outcome aggregation. Older decisions require temporal legal context.'}
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
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.