AAO research
EB-1A appeal timeliness — AAO decision JAN302008_01B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN302008_01B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely. No merits reviewed; the appeal was late and did not qualify for treatment as a motion to reopen or reconsider (pp. 2–3).
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN302008_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 30, 2008 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability. |
Procedural posture | The Director issued a denial on Nov. 22, 2006, and the notice specified the correct service center, appeal deadline, and fee. The petitioner sent the appeal to AAO with an incorrect fee; after it was returned, the appeal with the correct fee was actually received 65 days after service. AAO rejected it as untimely and found it did not meet motion requirements because it stated no new facts or legal error. |
Operative disposition | Appeal rejected as untimely. |
Final-merits status | not reached |
What the AAO decision addressed
No merits reviewed; the appeal was late and did not qualify for treatment as a motion to reopen or reconsider (pp. 2–3).
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 |
Membership | not considered |
Published material about the person | not considered |
Judging the work of others | not considered |
Original contributions of major significance | not considered |
Scholarly authorship | not considered |
Artistic display or showcases | not considered |
Leading or critical role | not considered |
High salary or remuneration | not considered |
Commercial success in the performing arts | not considered |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
No merits reviewed; the appeal was late and did not qualify for treatment as a motion to reopen or reconsider (pp. 2–3).
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Do not present the Director’s merits denial as an AAO finding.
Editorial use note: Eligible for carefully scoped, citation-rich content; preserve exact nonprecedent status and procedural posture.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 2 — Explains notice, incorrect fee and late actual receipt of appeal.
PDF page 3 — Rejects appeal as untimely and not meeting motion requirements.
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Untimely research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.