AAO research
EB-1A motions to reopen — AAO decision OCT012018_01B2203: Motion to reconsider denied; motion to reopen denied. Review source status, procedural posture…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT012018_01B2203: Motion to reconsider denied; motion to reopen denied. 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 | OCT012018_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2018-10-01 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Combined motion to reopen and reconsider after dismissal of EB-1A appeal; AAO denied both motions.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; classification: Combined motion to reopen and reconsider after dismissal of EB-1A appeal; AAO denied both motions.; director_findings: As distinguished in the source-specific basis. |
Operative disposition | {'outcome': 'Motion to reconsider denied; motion to reopen denied.', 'basis': 'The underlying appeal had found three initial criteria but concluded the record did not establish sustained acclaim at final merits. On motion, AAO found no legal or factual error and no new evidence sufficient to reopen; the motions were denied.', 'citation_pages': [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]} |
Final-merits status | The underlying appeal had found three initial criteria but concluded the record did not establish sustained acclaim at final merits. On motion, AAO found no legal or factual error and no new evidence sufficient to reopen; the motions were denied. |
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not considered — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | met — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'eligible_for_narrow_comparison': True, 'fit': 'Narrow comparison on the distinction between meeting three performing-arts criteria and failing final merits; motion-only review.', 'caveats': 'This is a motion decision, not a new merits appeal. The underlying disposition and final-merits result must be clearly distinguished from denial of the motions.'}
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
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.