AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV252020_02B2203: Motion to reconsider dismissed (p. 7). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV252020_02B2203: Motion to reconsider dismissed (p. 7). The motion omitted the required statement concerning judicial proceedings. AAO also rejected the substantive reconsideration arguments: awards to employer were not petitioner awards; membership, published material and contributions findings were not shown legally erroneous. Earlier appeal had found judging and leading/critical-role criteria but fewer than three. (pp. 1–7).
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_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV252020_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 25, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | Foreign-trade executive with claimed international trade and humanitarian/organizational work. |
Procedural posture | Motion to reconsider prior AAO decision; motion dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Motion to reconsider dismissed (p. 7). |
Final-merits status | No new final-merits review in this motion decision; underlying appeal remained below three criteria. Motion dismissed for procedural shortcoming and failure to show legal error (pp. 2, 7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
The motion omitted the required statement concerning judicial proceedings. AAO also rejected the substantive reconsideration arguments: awards to employer were not petitioner awards; membership, published material and contributions findings were not shown legally erroneous. Earlier appeal had found judging and leading/critical-role criteria but fewer than three. (pp. 1–7)
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 met |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | 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. 1–7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful motion-procedure and foreign-trade case comparator; label as reconsideration, with underlying appeal findings clearly separated. Individual page only with procedural history prominent. No editorial hold.
Editorial use note: Individual page only with procedural history prominent. No editorial hold.
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
Leading or critical role research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.