AAO research
EB-1A withdrawal and mootness — AAO decision JUN112024_01B2203: Director’s decision withdrawn; matter remanded for a new decision. Review source status…
Decision summary: The AAO {‘outcome’: ‘Director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision.’, ‘basis’: ‘The Director applied an unrelated NIW framework and did not sufficiently address the petitioner’s EB-1A evidence/comparable-evidence arguments.’, ‘citation_pages’: [1, 2, 3]} The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
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_procedural_eb1a_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUN112024_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2024-06-11 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Nonprecedent appeal from Texas Service Center denial of an EB-1A petition by a data analyst. The petitioner claimed comparable evidence, but the Director discussed eligibility under a separate national-interest-waiver classification and did not evaluate the evidence under the EB-1A criteria or the comparable-evidence regulation. AAO withdrew and Remanded for criterion-specific EB-1A analysis and, if the threshold is established, final merits.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; classification: appeal_Decision withdrawn and matter Remanded_wrong_classification_framework_and_comparable_evidence; director_findings: Nonprecedent appeal from Texas Service Center denial of an EB-1A petition by a data analyst. The petitioner claimed comparable evidence, but the Director discussed eligibility under a separate national-interest-waiver classification and did not evaluate the evidence under the EB-1A criteria or the comparable-evidence regulation. AAO withdrew and Remanded for criterion-specific EB-1A analysis and, if the threshold is established, final merits. |
Operative disposition | {‘outcome’: ‘Director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision.’, ‘basis’: ‘The Director applied an unrelated NIW framework and did not sufficiently address the petitioner’s EB-1A evidence/comparable-evidence arguments.’, ‘citation_pages’: [1, 2, 3]} |
Final-merits status | Not reached |
What the AAO decision addressed
The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
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 |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'fit': 'wrong_classification_framework_and_comparable_evidence', 'aggregation_valid': True, 'use': 'Strong procedural example on keeping EB-1A and NIW analyses distinct and evaluating comparable evidence under the correct classification; no criteria or approval were finally determined.', 'do_not_claim': ['Do not characterize a procedural dismissal, rejection, or remand as approval or a completed merits adjudication.', 'Do not infer criterion outcomes beyond those expressly stated.', 'Do not treat explicitly nonprecedent decisions as binding authority.', 'Do not publish or compare the two identity-held records until the cover/body classification discrepancy is reconciled.'], 'caveat': 'Use only source-specific claims with citations and distinguish current holdings from prior decisions; identity-held records must not be used for publication or aggregation.'}
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Remand research
Waiv research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.