AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision OCT152019_01B2203: Motions denied. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Motions denied Both motions denied; underlying appeal denial remained.
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 AAO appellate or motion decision; reviewed for source-grounded findings and procedural posture.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT152019_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 15, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A AAO decision |
Procedural posture | Motions to reconsider and reopen prior AAO dismissal; both denied. |
Operative disposition | Motions denied |
Final-merits status | This motion decision did not conduct a new final-merits review; underlying 2018 appeal dismissal remained in effect. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Both motions denied; underlying appeal denial remained.
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 coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Prior decision had found scholarly authorship as one criterion; reconsideration failed because petitioner did not show legal/policy error.; pages: 1; 2; 3
claim: On reopening, documents confirmed that requested peer reviews were actually completed, satisfying judging criterion.; pages: 4
claim: Published-material evidence failed major-media/about-the-petitioner showing; new citation and h-index material did not show major-significance contributions.; pages: 3; 4; 5
claim: Both motions denied; underlying appeal denial remained.; pages: 5
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: True; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: True; reason: Procedural motion case; useful for completed judging evidence, new-fact standard, and limited effect of h-index/download metrics.; recommended_use: Source-cited individual page; aggregate only with procedural and date caveats preserved.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.