dismissed EB-1A Case: Performing Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 12,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFI'ICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a performing artist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act section203(b)(I)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A). This 
tirst 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. We dismissed the subsequent 
appeal and denied a motion to reopen as untimely. The matter is now before us on a motion to 
reopen and a motion to reconsider, Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
1. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by aftidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2). A motion to 
reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. Upon tiling, a motion must include all initial 
evidence required by applicable regulations and other US CIS instructions. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(1 ). 
A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
On July 12, 2017 we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of the Nebraska Service Center's decision. On 
August 17, 2017 we received a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicating that it was liled 
as an appeal, rather than tiled as a motion. We rejected the second appeal on September 12,2017, 
because we do not exercise appellate jurisdiction over our own decisions and a dismissed appeal 
may not be appealed again. On September 27, 2017, USCIS received a Form I-290B indicating it is 
a motion to reopen the first appeal we dismissed on July 12. We denied the motion to reopen, 
tinding that it was untimely tiled. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that she made a typographical error on the Form 1-290B lilcd on 
August 17 and we should have treated the appeal as a motion. In the alternative, the Petitioner states 
Maller of A-B-
that the first I-290B was timely tiled and that date should have been applied to the later filed motion 
to reopen. 
Despite the Petitioner's claims that the Form I-290B tiled on August I 7 was intended to be a motion 
and not an appeal, the record does not support a finding that we erred in rejecting the appeal as 
improperly filed. The second Form I-2908 submission did not include a statement of new facts to be 
provided in the reopened proceeding or a statement of reasons for reconsideration. Although the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states that a petitioner may be permitted additional time to 
submit a brief or additional evidence to us in connection with an appeal, no such provision applies to 
a motion to reopen or reconsider. The additional evidence must comprise the motion. See 8 C.F.R 
§§ I 03.5(a)(2) and (3). Accordingly, we could not treat the second appeal as a motion to reopen or a 
motion to reconsider. 
A motion must be filed within 33 calendar days of the date that the unfavorable decision was served 
by mail. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), 103.8(b). When our office rejects an appeal, the appeal does not 
retain a filing date that can be applied to a later tiling. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(a)(7)(ii)-(iii). The filing 
date is the day USC!S receives the motion at the designated filing location, not the date the 
Petitioner mailed the motion. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(a)(7)(i). The Petitioner's motion to reopen was filed 
on September 27, 20I 7, which is 77 days atier the service date of the unfavorable decision. 
Therefore, the motion was correctly found to be untimely filed. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not asserted new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding, and docs not cite 
binding precedent decisions or other legal authority establishing that we or the director incorrectly 
applied the pertinent law or agency policy and that the prior decisions were erroneous based on the 
evidence of record at the time. Therefore, the motions do not satisfy applicable requirements. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Maller of A-B-, ID# 1258853 (AAO Apr. 12, 20 18) 
2