AAO research
EB-1A motions to reconsider — AAO decision JAN232013_01B2203: Motion to reconsider dismissed; July 26, 2012 decision affirmed and petition remains denied…
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN232013_01B2203: Motion to reconsider dismissed; July 26, 2012 decision affirmed and petition remains denied (p. 6). Counsel largely repeated prior arguments and asked for re-examination of evidence without identifying legal/factual error or new law/de novo determination. AAO explained a motion to reconsider is not a second appeal or new evidentiary hearing and rejected the arguments on criteria (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_with_motion_scope. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN232013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 23, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability motion decision; petitioner is a researcher/academic whose prior appeal was dismissed and petition denied (pp. 2–6). |
Procedural posture | Motion to reconsider AAO’s July 26, 2012 appellate decision; petitioner asked AAO to revisit awards, original contributions, leading role and other evidence (pp. 1–5). |
Operative disposition | Motion to reconsider dismissed; July 26, 2012 decision affirmed and petition remains denied (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
Counsel largely repeated prior arguments and asked for re-examination of evidence without identifying legal/factual error or new law/de novo determination. AAO explained a motion to reconsider is not a second appeal or new evidentiary hearing and rejected the arguments on criteria (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 considered — 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 considered — 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
"Sensitive identifying information redacted; underlying appeal findings are only revisited to decide motion requirements."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: Redacted motion cover; printed January 23, 2013.; p2: Prior appeal/denial history and motion dismissal announced.; p3: Legal standards: scope and requirements for reconsideration.; p4: Award arguments and failure to identify legal error.; p5: Contribution and leading-role arguments repeated; no basis for reconsideration.; p6: Motion dismissed; prior decision affirmed and petition remains denied.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Procedural example explaining that reconsideration must identify a legal/factual error and cannot simply reargue the prior appeal. Eligible only for motion-process content, not as new merits guidance.
Editorial use note: Eligible only for motion-process content, not as new merits guidance.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Redacted motion cover; printed January 23, 2013.
PDF page 2 — Prior appeal/denial history and motion dismissal announced.
PDF page 3 — Legal standards: scope and requirements for reconsideration.
PDF page 4 — Award arguments and failure to identify legal error.
PDF page 5 — Contribution and leading-role arguments repeated; no basis for reconsideration.
PDF page 6 — Motion dismissed; prior decision affirmed and petition remains denied.
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
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.