AAO research
EB-1A appeal arguments — AAO decision JAN102011_02B2203: February 2010 motion dismissed; August 2010 appeal summarily dismissed; prior appeal dismissal…
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN102011_02B2203: February 2010 motion dismissed; August 2010 appeal summarily dismissed; prior appeal dismissal affirmed and petition remains denied (p. 6). Motion was filed 61 days after AAO decision, omitted required statement about judicial proceedings, and did not show excusable delay. Subsequent appeal identified no specific error and supplied no evidence; proposed business changes arose after filing and could not establish eligibility at filing (pp. 2–6).
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN102011_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 10, 2011 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in business; investment manager/fund manager (pp. 2, 5). |
Procedural posture | Appeal from denial of a motion to reopen/reconsider and prior appeal; AAO reviews both underlying motion and later appeal (pp. 2–6). |
Operative disposition | February 2010 motion dismissed; August 2010 appeal summarily dismissed; prior appeal dismissal affirmed and petition remains denied (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
Motion was filed 61 days after AAO decision, omitted required statement about judicial proceedings, and did not show excusable delay. Subsequent appeal identified no specific error and supplied no evidence; proposed business changes arose after filing and could not establish eligibility at filing (pp. 2–6).
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 coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — 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 coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"No physical source issue. Captions/party identifiers redacted, but subject field and procedural result are legible."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: AAO cover; date Jan. 10, 2011; Texas service center; EB-1A petition.; p2: Prior appeal/motion chronology and petitioner’s business occupation.; p3: Motion timeliness and missing filing statement.; p4: Appeal extension request and absence of additional evidence.; p5: Post-filing business changes excluded; appeal lacked specific challenge; adverse totality.; p6: Combined operative order.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Good fit for procedural content about motion deadlines, filing defects, and filing-date eligibility; not a pure criterion-specific business case. Do not group with substantive appeal dismissals without labeling posture. Publish only as a procedural case explainer with clear chronology and narrow source citations.
Editorial use note: Publish only as a procedural case explainer with clear chronology and narrow source citations.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — AAO cover; date Jan. 10, 2011; Texas service center; EB-1A petition.
PDF page 2 — Prior appeal/motion chronology and petitioner’s business occupation.
PDF page 3 — Motion timeliness and missing filing statement.
PDF page 4 — Appeal extension request and absence of additional 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
Entrepreneurship sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.