AAO research
EB-1A withdrawal and mootness — AAO decision OCT132009_01B2203: Director’s decision withdrawn; petition remanded for consideration of initial evidence and…
Decision summary: The AAO {‘outcome’: ‘Director’s decision withdrawn; petition Remanded for consideration of initial evidence and issuance of RFE if necessary.’, ‘basis’: ‘USPS proof showed delivery of a substantial package; Director did not clarify submission contents and the record did not establish clear ineligibility, so further record review/RFE was required.’, ‘citation_pages’: [1, 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 | OCT132009_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2009-10-13 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Director’s decision withdrawn; petition Remanded for consideration of initial evidence and issuance of RFE if necessary. USPS proof showed delivery of a substantial package; Director did not clarify submission contents and the record did not establish clear ineligibility, so further record review/RFE was required.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; classification: director_decision_Decision withdrawn and matter Remanded_for_record_review_rfe; director_findings: Director found petition lacked documentary evidence and denied. On appeal counsel provided USPS Express Mail receipt showing a 4 lb 6 oz package delivered to Texas Service Center October 20, 2008 and signed for; package was a memorandum and 161 exhibits. AAO found evidence showed the service center received the supporting submission, and Director did not clarify what was submitted or issue an RFE. The record did not establish petitioner was clearly ineligible; AAO withdrew decision and Remanded for consideration of initial submission and an RFE if necessary. |
Operative disposition | {‘outcome’: ‘Director’s decision withdrawn; petition Remanded for consideration of initial evidence and issuance of RFE if necessary.’, ‘basis’: ‘USPS proof showed delivery of a substantial package; Director did not clarify submission contents and the record did not establish clear ineligibility, so further record review/RFE was required.’, ‘citation_pages’: [1, 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': 'evidence_delivery_record_and_rfe_remand', 'aggregation_valid': True, 'use': 'Strong procedural comparison on documenting delivery and USCIS duty to clarify/issue RFE where record is incomplete; this is a remand, not a finding that criteria were met.', '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 in the decision.', 'Do not treat remand as approval.', 'Do not treat explicitly nonprecedent decisions as binding authority.'], 'caveat': 'AAO did not determine criterion merits or final merits.'}
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
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.