AAO research
EB-1A withdrawal and mootness — AAO decision OCT122006_01B2203: Director’s revocation decision withdrawn; petition remanded for further action and…
Decision summary: The AAO {‘outcome’: ‘Director’s revocation decision withdrawn; petition Remanded for further action and subsequent AAO review.’, ‘basis’: ‘The agency used a notice of intent to deny instead of the required revocation notice and did not properly serve the petitioner. The record indicated eligibility evidence existed, but the petitioner must receive the proper notice and opportunity to respond.’, ‘citation_pages’: [2, 3]} 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 | OCT122006_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | Not stated in normalized review fields |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Appeal of revocation sustained procedurally; revocation decision withdrawn and Remanded for proper notice of intent to revoke and response. This is not approval on appeal and the petition’s ultimate status remained unresolved.; citation_pages: 2; 3; classification: revocation_decision_withdrawn_for_improper_notice_and_Remanded; director_findings: The Vermont Service Center had approved the Form I-140 on August 10, 2005, then issued an October 28, 2005 notice of intent to deny rather than a notice of intent to revoke; it later revoked on January 5, 2006. AAO explained that an already approved immigrant petition must be revoked through the statutory/regulatory revocation procedure, with notice and opportunity to rebut. It found the record indicated the evidence submitted before the notices supported eligibility under the EB-1A regulatory criteria, but the petitioner was not properly served the notice. AAO withdrew the Director’s decision and Remanded to issue a proper notice to revoke and allow a response; any new decision was to return to AAO for review. |
Operative disposition | {‘outcome’: ‘Director’s revocation decision withdrawn; petition Remanded for further action and subsequent AAO review.’, ‘basis’: ‘The agency used a notice of intent to deny instead of the required revocation notice and did not properly serve the petitioner. The record indicated eligibility evidence existed, but the petitioner must receive the proper notice and opportunity to respond.’, ‘citation_pages’: [2, 3]} |
Final-merits status | Not reached |
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 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 |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'fit': 'approved_petition_revocation_notice_and_response', 'aggregation_valid': True, 'use': 'Historically specific procedural explainer on revoking an approved petition: proper notice and opportunity to rebut are required; do not claim final approval or eligibility adjudication from this remand.', 'do_not_claim': ['Do not characterize a procedural dismissal, rejection, or remand as approval or a completed merits adjudication.', 'Do not infer criterion results beyond those expressly recited.', 'Do not treat an explicitly nonprecedent decision as binding authority.'], 'caveat': 'Use the cited procedural or criterion-specific holding narrowly. No final-merits conclusion unless explicitly stated in the source.'}
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
Remand research
Revocation research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.