AAO research
EB-1A appeal timeliness — AAO decision JAN272011_01B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director for consideration as motion to reconsider.…
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN272011_01B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director for consideration as motion to reconsider. Petitioner first sent appeal to wrong Chicago office, was told on June 3, 2010 it was incorrectly filed, and Director received it June 30, 57 days after decision; filing met requirements for motion to reconsider based on claim decision was incorrect on record evidence.
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: EB-1A procedural motion-conversion decision; no merits review.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN272011_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 27, 2011 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A procedural motion-conversion decision; no merits review. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial received 57 days after Director’s May 4, 2010 decision; AAO rejected it as untimely and returned it to Director as a motion to reconsider. |
Operative disposition | Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director for consideration as motion to reconsider. |
Final-merits status | not reached by current AAO decision; any Director findings mentioned are procedural history only |
What the AAO decision addressed
Petitioner first sent appeal to wrong Chicago office, was told on June 3, 2010 it was incorrectly filed, and Director received it June 30, 57 days after decision; filing met requirements for motion to reconsider based on claim decision was incorrect on record evidence.
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 reached — source PDF |
Membership | Not reached — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not reached — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not reached — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not reached — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not reached — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not reached — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Cover identifies EB-1A I-140 at Nebraska Service Center, dated January 27, 2011.; pages: 1
claim: Director issued denial May 4, 2010; petitioner dated appeal May 29, it was rejected as incorrectly filed at Chicago on June 3, and Director received June 30, 57 days after decision.; pages: 2
claim: AAO found appeal met motion-to-reconsider requirements and returned matter to Director.; pages: 2
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Procedural example about filing with wrong office and subsequent conversion to motion; compare only as distinct case facts, not a criterion example.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
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
Untimely research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.