AAO research
EB-1A motions to reopen — AAO decision OCT192022_01B2203: Fifth motion to reopen dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT192022_01B2203: Fifth motion to reopen dismissed. Petitioner did not state new facts supported as required, and evidence did not overcome the latest denial grounds (pp. 1–2).
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT192022_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 19, 2022 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; underlying field not specified in the inspected decision pages. |
Procedural posture | AAO describes a prior dismissed appeal and four subsequent motion adjudications. The matter is a fifth motion to reopen, following the latest AAO decision dated May 16, 2022. The motion repeats earlier assertions without new facts/evidence overcoming the prior grounds; AAO dismisses the motion. No criterion merits are reconsidered. |
Operative disposition | Fifth motion to reopen dismissed. |
Final-merits status | not reached |
What the AAO decision addressed
Petitioner did not state new facts supported as required, and evidence did not overcome the latest denial grounds (pp. 1–2).
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 considered |
Membership | not considered |
Published material about the person | not considered |
Judging the work of others | not considered |
Original contributions of major significance | not considered |
Scholarly authorship | not considered |
Artistic display or showcases | not considered |
Leading or critical role | not considered |
High salary or remuneration | not considered |
Commercial success in the performing arts | not considered |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
Petitioner did not state new facts supported as required, and evidence did not overcome the latest denial grounds (pp. 1–2).
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: May be grouped with successive-motion dispositions only when the motion number and precise preceding procedural history are preserved.
Editorial use note: Eligible only for carefully scoped, citation-rich procedural or narrow evidentiary content; preserve the decision’s nonprecedent status and posture.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Cover/title/instructions page is present; visually inspected.
PDF page 2 — Operative discussion and order page visually reviewed.
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person 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
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.