AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision MAY152018_02B2203: Motion to reopen denied; motion to reconsider denied. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY152018_02B2203: Motion to reopen denied; motion to reconsider denied. Reconsideration fails because petitioner does not establish legal/policy error. Reopening fails because new evidence does not establish eligibility at filing and is untimely/post-filing in relevant respects; the operative decision denies both motions.
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 | MAY152018_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 15, 2018 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; lawyer |
Procedural posture | Combined motions to reopen and reconsider after prior AAO decisions; decision concerns motion standards, not a fresh appeal merits determination. |
Operative disposition | Motion to reopen denied; motion to reconsider denied. |
Final-merits status | "unclear" |
What the AAO decision addressed
Reconsideration fails because petitioner does not establish legal/policy error. Reopening fails because new evidence does not establish eligibility at filing and is untimely/post-filing in relevant respects; the operative decision denies both motions.
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 | not met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 1–5; page-by-page notes below.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Procedural-only content on motions to reopen/reconsider, filing-date eligibility, and later evidence. Do not aggregate as a new first-instance criterion denial or appeal outcome. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Editorial use note: eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Cover identifies lawyer classification, combined motions and prior history.
PDF page 2 — Motion standards; prior membership decision and filing-date timing.
PDF page 3 — Reconsideration/legal error arguments and agency review.
PDF page 4 — Reopening/new evidence addressing membership and leading role.
PDF page 5 — Timeliness/filing-date rule and orders denying both motions.
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
Leading or critical role research
Public Service sector research
Untimely research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.