AAO research
EB-1A appeal timeliness — AAO decision SEP082009_02B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely; matter returned to director for consideration as motion to reopen.…
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP082009_02B2203: Appeal rejected as untimely; matter returned to director for consideration as motion to reopen. Although decision was served August 21, 2008, appeal with correct fee was received October 16, 2008 (after the 33-day deadline). The appeal satisfied requirements for treatment as a motion to reopen, so director must decide it on merits.
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 in-scope; current decision is procedural or remand-stage as stated above.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP082009_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 8, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A I-140 appeal rejected as untimely and returned for director to consider as motion to reopen. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial; appeal initially filed without proper fee and at wrong service center. |
Operative disposition | Appeal rejected as untimely; matter returned to director for consideration as motion to reopen. |
Final-merits status | Criteria and final merits not reached by AAO; motion merits left to director. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Although decision was served August 21, 2008, appeal with correct fee was received October 16, 2008 (after the 33-day deadline). The appeal satisfied requirements for treatment as a motion to reopen, so director must decide it on merits.
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 reached — source PDF |
Membership | Not reached — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not reached — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not reached — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not reached — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not reached — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not reached — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Cover identifies EB-1A petition and September 8, 2009 date.; pages: 1
claim: The decision explains the original appeal was sent to the wrong center, correct-fee receipt was October 16, 2008, and appeal was untimely.; pages: 2
claim: AAO found the untimely appeal met requirements for a motion to reopen and returned it to the director for a new decision.; pages: 2; 3
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Procedural-only; substantive motion outcome is absent.
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
Leading or critical role research
Untimely research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.