AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision JUL082021_01B2203: Motions dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Motions dismissed On the motion record, the AAO found two criteria met, but did not reopen or reconsider the prior dismissal; motion requirements were not satisfied.
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: Complete printed AAO Form I-140 EB-1A decision, confirmed from source pages 1–2.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL082021_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 8, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider an earlier AAO decision on an EB-1A petition; both motions dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Motions dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO did not reach final merits on the motion; the motion was dismissed without reopening the underlying case. |
What the AAO decision addressed
On the motion record, the AAO found two criteria met, but did not reopen or reconsider the prior dismissal; motion requirements were not satisfied.
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 | |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 3 |
Original contributions of major significance | abandoned — p. 3 |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 3 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner sought review in an IT project-management field and filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider an earlier AAO decision.; pages: 1; 2
claim: The AAO discussed membership, judging, scholarly authorship, original contributions, and high salary; it treated original contributions as abandoned, found membership and high salary not established, and found judging and scholarly authorship met.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.; pages: 9
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
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
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.