dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE:
MAR 0 5 Z011 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § IIS3(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
~~~ 
~rryRhew (j 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition on November 27, 2009. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the 
petitioner's appeal of that decision on December 28, 2010. Counsel filed a motion to reopen and 
a motion to reconsider the AAO's decision. Instead of forwarding the motions to the AAO, the 
director erroneously dismissed the motions on March 31, 2011. On September 22, 2011, the 
AAO reopened the proceeding on its own motion to consider the merits of the petitioner's 
motions and afforded the petitioner the opportunity to respond to derogatory information 
regarding Atlantic International University. On December 7, 2011, the AAO affirmed its prior 
decision denying the petition and dismissed the petitioner's motio~on to 
reconsider. The matter is now before the AAO on a second appeal _ The 
appeal will be rejected. 
On January 12, 2012, counsel submitted Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and marked 
box B in Part 2 indicating that she was "filing an appeal [emphasis added]" and a "brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." On February 2, 2012, 
counsel submitted a brief and indicated that "[t]he petitioner submits herein a brief in support of 
its basis for the appeal or motion [emphasis added]." However, the AAO does not exercise 
appellate jurisdiction over its own decisions. The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over only 
the matters described at 8 C.F.R. § 103. 1 (f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28,2003). See DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003). Accordingly, the appeal is not properly 
within the AAO's jurisdiction. 
Moreover, while counsel indicated on Form I-290B that she was filing an appeal, counsel's 
subsequently filed brief also refers to a motion. However, there is no indication that counsel's 
appeal meets the requirements ofa motion. Although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii) 
allows for the motion to be accompanied by a brief, the regulations do not allow additional time 
to submit a brief after the filing of a motion. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii), which allows 
the AAO to grant additional time to submit a brief after the filing of an appeal. Page 2 of the 
instructions to the Form I-290B clearly explains that "[a]ny additional evidence must be 
submitted with the motion" and there is no provision for an extension. As such, the motion 
would have been dismissed in the alternative pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Therefore, as the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 
§ 1 03.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(1). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
8 C.F.R.