AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision MAR042009_04B2203: Appeal timeliness

EB-1A appeal timeliness — AAO decision MAR042009_04B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director to consider as a motion to reconsider if…

Decision summary: AAO decision MAR042009_04B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director to consider as a motion to reconsider if requirements are met. Only filing timeliness and motion-treatment are decided; criterion merits are not reached (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	MAR042009_04B2203
Decision date as printed	March 4, 2009
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A extraordinary ability; underlying field is not stated in the reviewed decision text.
Procedural posture	Director denied the petition March 26, 2007. The appeal was dated April 26 and received May 2, 2007, 37 days later. Director had notified the petitioner that the late appeal would be treated as a motion to reopen; the Director later processed it as timely. AAO concluded the appeal was late, found it met requirements for a motion to reconsider, and returned the matter to the Director for consideration as such. The decision does not resolve eligibility merits.
Operative disposition	Appeal rejected as untimely; returned to Director to consider as a motion to reconsider if requirements are met.
Final-merits status	not reached

What the AAO decision addressed

Only filing timeliness and motion-treatment are decided; criterion merits are not reached (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

Only filing timeliness and motion-treatment are decided; criterion merits are not reached (pp. 2–3).

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Aggregate only with precise motion treatment and jurisdictional route preserved. Do not call this a merits remand.

Editorial use note: Eligible only for carefully scoped, citation-rich procedural or narrow evidentiary content; preserve the decision’s nonprecedent status and posture.

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
Untimely research
Remand research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for MAR042009_04B2203