AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision JUN042013_01B2203: Motion dismissed for procedural deficiencies; two letters considered on limited reopening and found…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN042013_01B2203: Motion dismissed for procedural deficiencies; two letters considered on limited reopening and found sufficient for intent to continue work; underlying petition remains denied (p. 5). Petitioner did not meet motion filing requirements and presented no qualifying new evidence to change the underlying denial. Prior appeal found deficiencies under the claimed display and remuneration criteria; membership and original-contribution claims had been abandoned and were not contested on motion (pp. 3–5).
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUN042013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 4, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts; petitioner submitted evidence concerning artistic display/showcases; current document is a motion decision (pp. 2–5). |
Procedural posture | Motion to reopen after prior appeal dismissal. AAO reopened only for limited consideration of two notarized letters about intent to continue work in the field (pp. 2, 5). |
Operative disposition | Motion dismissed for procedural deficiencies; two letters considered on limited reopening and found sufficient for intent to continue work; underlying petition remains denied (p. 5). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
Petitioner did not meet motion filing requirements and presented no qualifying new evidence to change the underlying denial. Prior appeal found deficiencies under the claimed display and remuneration criteria; membership and original-contribution claims had been abandoned and were not contested on motion (pp. 3–5).
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | abandoned |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | abandoned |
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 met — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Source is complete. Current decision incorporates prior proceedings; no assumption about the full original merits record beyond what this source states."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: AAO transmittal cover dated June 4, 2013.; p2: Prior appeal denial and current motion posture; AAO states it will consider two letters for intent only.; p3: Prior criteria claims: display and high remuneration; submitted evidence list.; p4: Evidence-not-new rationale and failure to address prior display/remuneration findings.; p5: Abandoned membership/original-contribution claims; letters satisfy intent-to-continue-work element; motion dismissed and petition remains denied.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful only for a narrow procedural explainer on limited reopening, motion requirements, and abandoned claims. Do not position as a fresh merits decision or combine with initial appeal denials. Exclude from automated factual summary until editor checks prior 2012 appeal text for full context; otherwise publish only as a motion-procedure case with the original petition denial prominently stated.
Editorial use note: Exclude from automated factual summary until editor checks prior 2012 appeal text for full context; otherwise publish only as a motion-procedure case with the original petition denial prominently stated.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 3 — Prior criteria claims: display and high remuneration; submitted evidence list.
PDF page 4 — Evidence-not-new rationale and failure to address prior display/remuneration findings.
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
Membership research
Original contributions of major significance research
Performance sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.