AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision OCT072009_01B2203: Withdrawal and mootness

EB-1A withdrawal and mootness — AAO decision OCT072009_01B2203: Director’s decision withdrawn; matter remanded for a new merits decision. Review source…

Decision summary: The AAO director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new merits decision. AAO Remanded because the Director failed to consider the initial evidence submitted more than a year before the denial; the Director must issue a new merits decision and, if adverse, certify it to AAO.

Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.

Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A_AAO_decision_no_precedent_status_asserted. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID	OCT072009_01B2203
Decision date as printed	October 7, 2009
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A Form I-140; field not specified in the AAO discussion
Procedural posture	Texas Service Center denial appealed. Counsel asserted initial supporting evidence had been submitted. The AAO found the record contained a submission dated November 5, 2007, but Director denied on December 3, 2008 without considering that evidence.
Operative disposition	Director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new merits decision.
Final-merits status	Not reached

What the AAO decision addressed

AAO Remanded because the Director failed to consider the initial evidence submitted more than a year before the denial; the Director must issue a new merits decision and, if adverse, certify it to AAO.

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 AAO Remanded for a new full merits adjudication because the Director had failed to consider submitted evidence; AAO did not decide this criterion. — source PDF
Published material about the person	Not reached — source PDF
Judging the work of others	Not reached AAO Remanded for a new full merits adjudication because the Director had failed to consider submitted evidence; AAO did not decide this criterion. — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	Not reached AAO Remanded for a new full merits adjudication because the Director had failed to consider submitted evidence; AAO did not decide this criterion. — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	Not reached AAO Remanded for a new full merits adjudication because the Director had failed to consider submitted evidence; AAO did not decide this criterion. — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	Not reached AAO Remanded for a new full merits adjudication because the Director had failed to consider submitted evidence; AAO did not decide this criterion. — source PDF
Leading or critical role	Not reached AAO Remanded for a new full merits adjudication because the Director had failed to consider submitted evidence; AAO did not decide this criterion. — source PDF
High salary or remuneration	Not reached AAO Remanded for a new full merits adjudication because the Director had failed to consider submitted evidence; AAO did not decide this criterion. — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	Not reached AAO Remanded for a new full merits adjudication because the Director had failed to consider submitted evidence; AAO did not decide this criterion. — source PDF

Source holds and limits

["The AAO did not decide eligibility or any criterion; outcome on remand is not in this source.", "Avoid describing the petition as approved or the petitioner as extraordinary."]

Specific caveats recorded by the reviewer

The AAO did not decide eligibility or any criterion; outcome on remand is not in this source.
Avoid describing the petition as approved or the petitioner as extraordinary.

Source-cited findings recorded in review

claim: The source identifies an AAO decision dated October 7, 2009.; pages: 1
claim: The petition or motion classification is described as: EB-1A Form I-140; field not specified in the AAO discussion.; pages: 2
claim: Texas Service Center denial appealed. Counsel asserted initial supporting evidence had been submitted. The AAO found the record contained a submission dated November 5, 2007, but Director denied on December 3, 2008 without considering that evidence.; pages: 2
claim: AAO Remanded because the Director failed to consider the initial evidence submitted more than a year before the denial; the Director must issue a new merits decision and, if adverse, certify it to AAO.; pages: 2
claim: Operative order: Director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new merits decision.; pages: 2

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: narrow_procedural_explainer_only

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
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Remand research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for OCT072009_01B2203