dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 1 8 2014 
INRE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY : 
OFFICE : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S . .Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Imrni grat i.on Servic e~ 
Adm.inistrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washin12ton. 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration , you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:ijwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank 
you, 
tft?V~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on June 17, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
summarily dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the basis that the petitioner did not identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The matter is now before the AAO 
on a motion to reopen and reconsider, filed on November 26, 2013. The motion will be dismissed. 
The AAO's decision summarily dismissing the appeal will be affirmed, and the petition will remain 
denied. 
I. Requirements of a Motion 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C) provides that a motion shall be submitted on Form I-
29GB and it must be "[a]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the 
unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, 
nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 
On motion, the petitioner has failed to submit a statement indicating if the validity of the AAO's 
November 12, 2013 unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) 
requires that "(a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
Accordingly, the petitioner's motion must be dismissed pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4) without regard to the claims contained within the motion. Notwithstanding this 
omission, the motion does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to 
reconsider. 
II. Motion to Reopen and Reconsider 
A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a heavy burden and "must state the new facts to be 
provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Based on its discretion, "the INS [now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS)] has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case. [USCIS] should have the 
right to be restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by 
aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to establish 
a prima facie case." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988). The result also needlessly wastes the time 
and efforts of the triers of fact who must attend to the filing requests. !d. 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the original decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In essence, a motion to reconsider contests the 
correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to 
reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. Compare 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
On motion, the petitioner files a November 21, 2013 letter from the founder 
and manager of the petitioner. According to the letter, on September 26, 2013, the petitioner mailed 
a letter to the AAO detailing the bases of its appeal. Notwithstanding that this letter postdates the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
!:'age 3 
30-day period in which the petitioner indicated it would supplement the appeal, the petitioner has 
not provided any new evidence, such as affidavits, return receipts or other tracking information 
from the U.S. Postal Service or another mail delivery service, in support of the assertion. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Instead, on motion , the petitioner has re-submitted documents it previously filed in support of the 
petition and a letter it claims it submitted to supplement the appeal in September 2013, but the 
petitioner has not submitted new evidence to overcome the summary dismissal. In addition, the 
record of proceeding contains no evidence showing that USCIS received a letter or a statement 
detailing the bases of the appeal or documents in support of the petitioner's appeal in September 
2013 or at any .time prior to the submission of such documents with the instant motion. As such, the 
record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner filed any documents on appeal identifying an 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted new 
evidence that overcomes the summary dismissal the petition.er now seeks to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 
The petitioner's motion to reconsider is also dismissed. Specifically, on motion the petitioner has 
not stated the reasons for reconsideration, or supported the reasons with pertinent precedent 
decisions showing that the AAO's November 12, 2013 decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Indeed, other than noting in part 2 
of the Form I-290B, filed on November 26, 2013, that the petitioner is filing a motion to reconsider, 
the petitioner does not state any bases for the motion to reconsider in its filing. The petitioner did 
not state the reasons for reconsideration and did not support the motion with any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or 
USCIS policy. Thus, the filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3) 
In conclusion, the motion to reopen and reconsider is dismissed because the petitioner has not 
submitted a statement regarding any judicial proceeding relating to the validity of the AAO's 
November 12, 2013 unfavorable decision and because the petitioner's filing does not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed, the decision of the AAO dated November 12, 2013 ts 
affirmed, and the petition remains denied.