dismissed EB-1A Case: Hydrology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 13, 2024 In Re: 34905333 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a hydrologist who seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 the Petitioner did not 
establish that she had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. We 
dismissed a subsequent appeal and two subsequent motions - first, a motion to reconsider, followed 
by a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, both of which we dismissed as untimely. The matter 
is now before us on a third motion - another combined motion 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 
motion. 
As a preliminary matter, we noted that the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the 
latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider 
new evidence to the extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the combined motion to 
reopen and reconsider as untimely. 
First, we will address the Petitioner's motion to reopen, which must state new facts and be supported 
by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 
1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner offers evidence that only addresses deficiencies discussed in the Director's 
denial, but she does not provide new facts pertaining to our prior decision to dismiss her combined 
motion due to its untimely filing. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would 
warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not 
re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
Next, we will address the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, which must establish that our prior 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law 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). 
As stated earlier, our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. 
In this matter, our latest decision contemplated the propriety of our dismissal of the Petitioner's first 
motion - a motion to reconsider - on the basis that it was untimely filed. In our prior decision, we 
summarized the instructions for filing a motion to reconsider, including where to file and the 30-day 
filing deadline, which allows three additional days for mailing. We also acknowledged that the filing 
deadline ended on a federal and therefore allowed another day, in addition to the three allowed for 
mailing, in calculating the Petitioner's filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) and 103.8(b). 
Ultimately, after applying these parameters, we determined that the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, 
which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received 12 days after the filing deadline, 
was correctly dismissed. We then pointed out that the shipping label on the subsequent motion - the 
combined to reopen and reconsider that is the subject of this current proceeding - was mailed on the 
filing deadline for that motion. However, as noted in our latest decision, the filing date is not the date 
a filing is mailed, but rather the date it is properly received by USCTS in accordance with filing 
instructions. See generally I USCIS Policy Manual B.6(C), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Because the Petitioner's prior combined motion was not received by USCTS by the deadline, but rather 
one week after that deadline, we determined that that motion was also untimely filed and dismissed it 
on that basis. We cited the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(i), which states that an extension of 
the filing deadline is not permitted for motions to reconsider. And while we acknowledged that this 
regulation permits us to use discretion in excusing an untimely filing of a motion to reopen, we noted 
that the untimeliness may only be excused upon a petitioner's showing that the delay was reasonable 
and beyond their control. We determined, however, that the Petitioner's claim that "it was difficult 
for me [the Petitioner] to finish printing everything just in time" did not qualify as reasonable and 
beyond the Petitioner's control. As such, the untimely filing of the Petitioner's motion to reopen could 
not be excused. 
On current motion, the Petitioner apologizes for the untimely filing, stating that "it was not in my 
hands to send you [sic] on time." The Petitioner does not, however, dispute the correctness of our 
decision to dismiss her motion on the basis of its untimely filing. Rather, the Petitioner discusses and 
seeks further consideration of the Director's denial, which was based on evidentiary deficiencies 
pertaining to the Petitioner's claimed eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. In sum, the Petitioner seeks to reargue facts and issues that we had already considered, but 
she does not address the basis of our prior decision to dismiss her combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. See e.g., Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 T&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is 
not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek 
reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). 
2 
We may grant motions that satisfy the motion requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the 
requested benefit, and we will not re-adjudicate the petition anew. The Petitioner does not establish 
that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. Therefore, 
the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3