dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
%-S-I. 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
EAC 05 208 53461 
 NOV 2 1 2806 
Petition: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any futher inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 
% Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 
Service Center. The petitioner filed a subsequent appeal. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
determined that the appeal was not filed by anyone with standing in the matter. The AAO rejected 
the appeal without rendering a decision. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. 
The motion will be rejected. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 11 53(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The appeal was filed by 
 who submitted a Form G-28, Notice f Entry of Appearance as 
Attorney or Representative signed by the petitioner. On the Form G-28, Oncates that he is a 
"case manager." Pursuant to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 292.1(a), 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(iii) and 
8 C.F.R. 3 lb3.2(a)(2)(v), the AAO determined that the appeal had not been filed by the petitioner, nor 
by any entity with legal standing in the proceeding. Therefore, the AAO concluded that the appeal had 
not been properly filed, and must be rejected. 
Counsel has now filed a motion seeking to reopen the appeal that was rejected, asserting that while 
improperly filed, the rejected appeal was timely. Thus, counsel asserts, the motion is being filed "to 
preserve" the petitioner's rights. 
The petitioner has filed a motion seeking to reopen the appeal that was rejected as improperly filed. 
As the appeal was rejected by the AAO, there is no decision on the part of the AAO that may be 
reopened in this proceeding. According to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(ii), jurisdiction over a motion 
resides in the official who made the latest decision in the proceeding. The AAO did not enter a 
decision on this matter. Because the disputed decision was rendered by the director, the AAO has no 
jurisdiction over this motion and the motion must be rejected. 
Moreover, the motion is untimely. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i), states that a motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen or reconsider. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 103.a(b) states that whenever a person is required to act within a prescribed period after the 
service of a notice upon him and the notice is served by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed 
period. Here, the AAO mailed its decision to the petitioner on April 24, 2006. Counsel dated his 
motion May 1 1, 2006, but the decision was properly received by the Service Center on August 30, 
2006. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i) provides that a late motion may be excused in the discretion 
of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable 
and was beyond the control of the applicant or petitioner. The petitioner has failed to establish that the 
delay was either reasonable or beyond his control. 
ORDER: The motion is rejected.