AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision OCT142020_04B2203: Appeal or motion dismissed, as stated in the decision. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT142020_04B2203: Appeal or motion dismissed, as stated in the decision. Motion to reconsider dismissed. AAO found no error in its prior conclusions on four contested criteria; the motion did not reopen de novo fact review. (pp. 2–9).
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_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT142020_04B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 14, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | Law; attorney specializing in international tax law, with Indian government tax-litigation work |
Procedural posture | Motion to reconsider AAO appellate dismissal; review limited to claimed legal or policy error in prior decision. |
Operative disposition | Appeal or motion dismissed, as stated in the decision. |
Final-merits status | No final-merits determination on this motion; prior appeal had found no criteria met. (pp. 3, 8–9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Motion to reconsider dismissed. AAO found no error in its prior conclusions on four contested criteria; the motion did not reopen de novo fact review. (pp. 2–9)
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
Motion review is limited to asserted legal/policy error in the prior AAO decision; do not characterize it as a fresh evidentiary appeal. (pp. 2–3)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Cited procedural explainer on what a motion to reconsider can review and why legal advocacy does not automatically establish field-wide contribution or critical role.
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
Membership research
Leading or critical role research
Public Service sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.