dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Ilomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
~dentlfvbg dab &bed to 
 U. S. Citizenship 
prevent ckwly unwPrronfed and Immigration 
hva.sion ef serscmal ~rtmct 
pu%lJc COPY 
FILE: WAC 02 195 5 1698 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 3 2006 
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 11 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
%obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 195 5 1698 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal. 
The matter is now before the AAO on motion. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(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. 
On appeal, prior counsel indicated that he would submit a brief andlor additional evidence within 30 
days. Prior counsel dated the appeal October 10, 2003. On March 31, 2004 the AAO summarily 
dismissed the appeal after having received nothing hrther from prior counsel. 
On October 20, 2004, almost seven months later, the petitioner, through counsel, files the instant 
motion to reopen. Counsel asserts that the appeal was summarily dismissed due to prior counsel's 
ineffective assistance. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i) provides, in pertinent part: 
Any motion to reconsider an action by the Service filed by an applicant or petitioner 
must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider. Any 
motion to reopen a proceeding before the Service filed by an applicant or petitioner, 
must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen, except that 
failure to file before this period expires, may be excused in the discretion of the Service 
where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the control of 
the applicant or petitioner. 
The record reveals that the AAO's notice was mailed to the petitioner at his address of record and to 
prior counsel at his address of record. The petitioner has not demonstrated that he or prior counsel 
advised the AAO of any change of address. In fact, counsel acknowledges that the petitioner received 
the AAO's notice dismissing the appeal. As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his failure to 
file a timely motion was due to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) error. 
On motion, counsel asserts that while the petitioner received the dismissal, he did not "understand the 
meaning of it." Regardless, counsel has not established that the petitioner's failure to file the motion 
until almost six months after the regulatory deadline was reasonable and beyond the control of the 
petitioner. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.