dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 26, 2023 In Re: 28586944 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The 
Petitioner, an actor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that, although the Petitioner 
established that she satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, she did not establish, as required, 
that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the small percentage at 
the very top of the field. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The Petitioner then filed a motion to 
reconsider, which we dismissed as untimely. The matter is now before us on combined motions to 
reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The official with jurisdiction over a 
motion may, for proper cause shown, reopen the proceeding or reconsider the prior decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .5( a)( 1 )(i). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for 
the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 4 73 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new 
evidence have the potential to change the outcome) . 
Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
Therefore, we begin by discussing the circumstances underlying that decision. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on February 16, 2022. In that decision, we discussed the merits 
of the petition. Upon dismissal of the appeal, the Petitioner had 33 days to file a motion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). COVID-19 flexibilities then in place added 60 days to the allotted time. See "USCIS 
Extends Flexibility for Responding to Agency Requests," https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/ 
alerts/uscis-extends-flexibility-for-responding-to-agency-requests-1. As a result, a timely motion had 
to be filed no later than May 20, 2022. 
On May l 0, 2022, the Petitioner attempted to file the combined motions, but U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) rejected the filing as deficient, stating it did not meet filing 
requirements. The Petitioner then re-filed the motion on June 9, 2022, after the filing deadline had 
elapsed. 
We dismissed the motion on February 15, 2023, stating: "The motion to reconsider was filed untimely. 
Thus, the motion does not meet applicable requirements." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) 
requires the dismissal of a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. 
On motion from that decision, the Petitioner contests the dismissal of the earlier motion, stating that 
she filed the motion within the time permitted. The Petitioner submits copies of mailing records and 
asserts that USCIS should have accepted the May 2022 filing. The record, however, does not show 
that the Petitioner properly filed the motion in May 2022. 
The instructions to Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, state on page 7: 
Where To File? 
Use the chart at www.uscis.gov/i-290b-addresses to dete1mine the cmrect filing 
address for your appeal or motion. Form I-290B is not considered received by USCIS 
unless you file it at the proper location. 
DO NOT FILE FORM I-290B DIRECTLY WITH THE AAO. 
The filing address chart mentioned above indicates that, to file a motion on an AAO decision, filers 
should send Form I-290B to "[t]he USCIS office that made the original unfavorable decision." The 
chart includes an illustrative example: 
Example: The USCIS Miami Field Office denied your Form I-601. You filed an appeal 
with the AAO, but AAO dismisses the appeal. You want to file a motion asking that 
AAO reconsider its dismissal. You should file your motion with the Chicago Lockbox 
because the Miami Field Office issued the original denial on your case. 
The Petitioner's motion includes a printout of the filing address instructions quoted directly above. 
In this case, the Texas Service Center issued the original unfavorable decision by denying the petition. 
The chart identified above specified that filings disputing Service Center decisions should be sent to 
the "USCIS Phoenix Lockbox." 
2 
On motion, the Petitioner states that she followed these instructions, but evidence submitted on motion 
does not support that claim. 
The Petitioner states: "we filed I-290B on May 10, 2022 to AAO and a copy also submitted to decision 
location - Texas Service Center." The May 2022 cover letter and mailing receipts submitted on 
motion are consistent with this statement. Those documents appear to indicate that, instead of sending 
the complete, original May 2022 filing to the Phoenix Lockbox in accordance with instructions, the 
Petitioner attempted to file the motion directly with the AAO, with a copy sent, without fee, directly 
to the Texas Service Center. The May 2022 cover letter also referred to a courtesy copy sent to the 
Phoenix Lockbox, but the letter did not indicate that the Phoenix Lockbox received a complete filing 
with both a brief and the required fee. 
Correspondence submitted with the latest motion indicates that the Phoenix Lockbox received the May 
2022 motion on May 19, 2022 and rejected it on May 31, 2022, stating the motion lacked necessary 
information and therefore was not complete. The Form I-290B that the Petitioner executed in May 
2022 did not include any information about the basis for the motion, and therefore if it were filed 
without either the brief or the fee then it would not have constituted a complete, properly executed 
motion. The available evidence does not establish that the May 2022 mailing to the Phoenix Lockbox 
included both the brief and the fee. 
The AAO does not directly accept motion filings, and therefore the Form I-290B instructions 
specifically direct applicants and petitioners not to "file Form I-290B directly with the AAO." 
By the time the Petitioner refiled the complete motion with the Phoenix Lockbox in June 2022, the 
filing deadline had passed. 
Every form, benefit request, or other document must be submitted and executed in accordance with 
the form instructions. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). Here, the Form I-290B instructs petitioners not to send 
motions directly to the AAO, but the Petitioner did so anyway. The Petitioner cites this direct mailing 
to the AAO as evidence of timely filing, but it serves to indicate that the Petitioner did not timely and 
properly file the May 2022 motion in accordance with the form instructions to retain a filing date. 
The postal documentation submitted on motion constitutes new evidence relating to the mailing and 
delivery of the prior motion, but the new evidence does not establish that we erred in dismissing the 
first motion as untimely. Rather, it confirms that the May 2022 motion was not properly filed. 
Therefore, the newly submitted evidence does not establish proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. The Petitioner has not met 
her burden of proof to establish that she made any timely submission that complied with applicable 
policy and regulations. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3