AAO research
EB-1A motions to reopen — AAO decision JUL222013_01B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed; December 17, 2012 AAO decision…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL222013_01B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed; December 17, 2012 AAO decision affirmed; petition remains denied. The motion to reopen presented no new evidence. The motion to reconsider did not identify a specific factual or legal error in the latest AAO decision; the repeated claims were previously addressed.
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 successive procedural motion; current decision does not independently adjudicate criteria.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL222013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 22, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | Combined motions to reopen and reconsider; dismissed |
Procedural posture | Director denied in 2008; AAO dismissed appeal in 2009 and three earlier motions through December 2012. The current filing largely repeated prior counsel’s brief and did not address the latest decision’s motion requirements. |
Operative disposition | Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed; December 17, 2012 AAO decision affirmed; petition remains denied. |
Final-merits status | No new final-merits review. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The motion to reopen presented no new evidence. The motion to reconsider did not identify a specific factual or legal error in the latest AAO decision; the repeated claims were previously addressed.
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: Decision dated July 22, 2013; current filing followed three earlier motions and the December 17, 2012 AAO decision.; pages: 1; 2
claim: Current brief repeated prior claims and did not address why the latest decision’s motion requirements were met.; pages: 2
claim: No new evidence supported reopening; repeated assertions about six criteria did not specify error or pertinent legal authority for reconsideration.; pages: 3
claim: Both motions dismissed and prior AAO decision affirmed; petition remains denied.; pages: 4
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Procedural only; exclude from criterion and merits aggregation.
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
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.