AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV212022_02B2203: Remanded for a new analysis; no ultimate eligibility decision on this appeal. Review source status…
Decision summary: The AAO Remanded for a new analysis; no ultimate eligibility decision on this appeal. AAO found defects in the Director’s criterion-level and final-merits reasoning. It instructed reconsideration of the evidence under the criteria and a totality analysis if the threshold is met; it did not itself approve the petition.
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 | NOV212022_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 21, 2022 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; field: business/entrepreneurship and human-rights advocacy. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from denial; petitioner challenged criterion findings and the Director’s final-merits analysis. |
Operative disposition | Remanded for a new analysis; no ultimate eligibility decision on this appeal. |
Final-merits status | “not reached by AAO; Director’s reasoning found deficient and Remanded.” |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found defects in the Director’s criterion-level and final-merits reasoning. It instructed reconsideration of the evidence under the criteria and a totality analysis if the threshold is met; it did not itself approve the petition.
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 | unclear |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | met |
Judging the work of others | unclear |
Original contributions of major significance | unclear |
Scholarly authorship | unclear |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | unclear |
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. 1–4, especially pp. 2–4 for remand and criterion discussion.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful procedural comparator for remands requiring criterion-by-criterion reassessment and a reasoned final-merits analysis. Do not present as a substantive approval or denial precedent. 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 — Public-copy cover; AAO decision date and case caption.
PDF page 4 — Concludes remand instructions; no final approval/denial determination by AAO.
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
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Threshold research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.