dismissed EB-1A Case: Multimedia Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17561866 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 16, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a multimedia designer, seeks classification as an alien 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement for this classification through 
evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting three of the criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) . In our decision dated May 29, 2020, we agreed with the Director and 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. He subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which was received 
on August 26, 2020, 89 days after our appeal decision was issued. We dismissed the motion as 
untimely. The Petitioner now submits combined motions to reopen and reconsider, challenging our 
previous decision. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy to the prior decision , and 
a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to 
reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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). A motion to reconsider must be filed within 33 of the 
date of the unfavorable decision. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.S(a)(l), 103.8(b). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, in our most recent decision in this matter, we dismissed the Petitioner's motion to 
reconsider because it was not timely filed. While we acknowledged that USCIS issued guidance that 
allows for acceptance of Form I-290B within 60 calendar days of the unfavorable decision, due to 
processing and mailing delays resulting from the COVI-19 pandemic, the Petitioner's previous motion 
was not received until 89 days after our appeal decision was issued. 
On motion, the Petitioner makes three arguments that the previous motion should not have been 
rejected as untimely. First, he refers to an email dated July 1, 2020 from USCIS which announced an 
extension of filing flexibilities initially instated on March 30, 2020. He highlights the language from 
that email which lists "filing date requirements for Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion" as one 
of several listed documents to which the flexibility applies. However, that email clearly states that a 
Form I-290B will be considered if "received up to 60 calendar days from the date of the decision 
before we take any action." Therefore, because the Petitioner's Form I-290B for his first motion was 
received 89 days after the date of our appeal decision, it cannot be considered to have been filed within 
the extended period allowed by the COVID-19 filing flexibilities policy. 
Second, the Petitioner notes that an initial Form I-290B was received on July 2, 2020, 34 days after 
our unfavorable decision, but was rejected because it was filed on an outdated form, which he attributes 
to "a minor clerical error." In addition, he refers to submitted media articles regarding delays and 
other issues at the U.S. Postal Service during the COVID-19 pandemic, asserting that these led to a 
delay in his ability to refile the rejected Form I-290B. The Petitioner supports this argument by 
referring to 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i), which allows USCIS to excuse an untimely filed motion to 
reopen in our discretion if the delay was reasonable and beyond the control of the petitioner. However, 
the regulation does not provide for discretion with regard to untimely filed motions to reconsider, 
which is the type of motion filed by the Petitioner after our dismissal of his appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was incorrect based upon the evidence of 
record or that that we misapplied relevant policy or law. In addition, after review of the new facts 
submitted in support of his motion to reopen, we conclude that he has not overcome the grounds for 
our dismissal of his previous motion. Accordingly, we will dismiss both motions. 
2 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3