Decision summary: AAO decision JAN162020_04B2203: Second motion to reopen dismissed. The motion lacked the required statement about judicial proceedings; independently, new evidence did not cure prior deficiencies on published material and high salary. The cited article was about a designed apartment, not the petitioner; evidence did not establish the magazine’s circulation. Prior appeal found display and leading/critical role criteria, but fewer than three initial criteria overall.

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. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

What the AAO decision addressed

The motion lacked the required statement about judicial proceedings; independently, new evidence did not cure prior deficiencies on published material and high salary. The cited article was about a designed apartment, not the petitioner; evidence did not establish the magazine’s circulation. Prior appeal found display and leading/critical role criteria, but fewer than three initial criteria overall.

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.

Source holds and limits

"This is a second motion with prior decisions incorporated by reference; underlying record and earlier decisions are separate sources."

Source-cited findings recorded in review

• claim: AAO states prior appeal found display and leading/critical role, but not three criteria; prior motion evidence on published material/high salary was insufficient.; pages: 2

• claim: Second-motion article credited petitioner with interior photographs but concerned apartment design, and circulation data did not establish domus design’s reach.; pages: 3; 4

• claim: Required judicial-proceeding statement was absent; motion dismissed.; pages: 2; 4; 5

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 1 — Cover; identifies second motion and petition type/date.

• PDF page 2 — History of earlier denial/appeal/motion; identifies missing judicial-proceedings statement and standard.

• PDF page 3 — Review of article and translation; article is about apartment, not petitioner.

• PDF page 4 — Circulation/professional-publication evidence analysis and high-salary evidence.

• PDF page 5 — Conclusion/order dismissing motion.

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

• Published material about the person research

• Leading or critical role research

• High salary or remuneration research

• Performance sector research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for JAN162020_04B2203