AAO research
EB-1A appeal timeliness — AAO decision OCT212013_01B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient. Review source status…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT212013_01B2203: Motion to reopen dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient. No criterion review; disposition is based on untimeliness and formal motion requirements (pp. 2–3). Final merits not reached.
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 | OCT212013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 21, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability. |
Procedural posture | After the petitioner withdrew an appeal that AAO dismissed on May 25, 2012, she filed a motion on Nov. 26, 2012 seeking to reopen the matter. AAO found the motion was filed more than six months after the decision, was untimely, and failed formal motion requirements, including the required statement about judicial proceedings. AAO dismissed the motion and affirmed the prior appeal dismissal. |
Operative disposition | Motion to reopen dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient. |
Final-merits status | not reached |
What the AAO decision addressed
No criterion review; disposition is based on untimeliness and formal motion requirements (pp. 2–3). Final merits not reached.
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
No criterion review; disposition is based on untimeliness and formal motion requirements (pp. 2–3). Final merits not reached.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Do not infer a merits result from the earlier withdrawn/dismissed appeal.
Editorial use note: Eligible for carefully scoped, citation-rich content; preserve exact nonprecedent status and procedural posture.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 2 — Finds motion filed months late and missing required motion statement.
PDF page 3 — Rejects motion and affirms earlier disposition.
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
Final Merits research
Untimely research
Withdrawal research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.