AAO research
EB-1A appeal timeliness — AAO decision OCT262005_06B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT262005_06B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely. The appeal was not properly filed until June 9, beyond the 33-day mailed-decision period; no merits review (pp. 2–3).
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 | OCT262005_06B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 26, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; field not identified in the reviewed pages. |
Procedural posture | Director issued denial April 20, 2004. Petitioner submitted I-290B May 22, 2004, but it was rejected because it was not properly signed; the service center sent rejection notice June 1. A properly signed form was submitted June 9, 50 days after denial. AAO rejected the appeal as untimely and stated the Director had declined to treat it as a motion and forwarded it to AAO. |
Operative disposition | Appeal rejected as untimely. |
Final-merits status | not reached |
What the AAO decision addressed
The appeal was not properly filed until June 9, beyond the 33-day mailed-decision period; no merits review (pp. 2–3).
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
The appeal was not properly filed until June 9, beyond the 33-day mailed-decision period; no merits review (pp. 2–3).
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Keep separate from merits determinations and from cases where the original defective filing date is accepted.
Editorial use note: Eligible for carefully scoped, citation-rich procedural content only; preserve nonprecedent status and posture.
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
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
Untimely research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.