AAO research
EB-1A motions to reopen — AAO decision OCT022013_01B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed; prior decision affirmed and petition…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT022013_01B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed; prior decision affirmed and petition remains denied. AAO found motion to reopen lacked required affidavits/documentary evidence and new facts; reconsideration did not identify specific factual or legal error. Reasserting disagreement with prior criterion analysis did not meet motion requirements.
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: EB-1A successive motion practice; no fresh merits or criterion determination.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT022013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 2, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | Motion to reopen and reconsider dismissed |
Procedural posture | Current combined motion followed prior AAO dismissal of an appeal and a first combined motion. Counsel again challenged the prior motion decision without required supporting materials or new qualifying facts. |
Operative disposition | Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed; prior decision affirmed and petition remains denied. |
Final-merits status | No new final-merits determination; prior denial remains. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found motion to reopen lacked required affidavits/documentary evidence and new facts; reconsideration did not identify specific factual or legal error. Reasserting disagreement with prior criterion analysis did not meet motion requirements.
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 reached — source PDF |
Membership | Not reached — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not reached — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not reached — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not reached — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not reached — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not reached — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Cover dates motion decision October 2, 2013; prior appeal was dismissed May 24, 2011 and a subsequent motion was dismissed June 10, 2013.; pages: 1; 2
claim: AAO states a motion to reopen requires new facts supported by evidence and a motion to reconsider must identify specific legal/factual error.; pages: 2; 3
claim: AAO finds counsel supplied no qualifying new evidence or specific error; motions dismissed and underlying petition remains denied.; pages: 3; 4
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Procedural only; exclude from criteria and outcome aggregation.
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
Published material about the person research
Leading or critical role research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.