dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S,Department of HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOl'lice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve., N.W.. MS2090
Washinuton,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: JUL 0 5 2012 OMce: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. Pleasenotethatall documents
havebeenreturnedto the office that originallydecidedyour case. Pleasealsonotethat any further
inquirymustbemadeto thatoffice.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
Service Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) rejected a subsequentappeal as
untimelyfiled. The matteris now beforethe AAO on motionto reopenandreconsider.The
motion will be dismissedpursuantto 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C),103.5(a)(3),and
103.5(a)(4).
In orderto properlyfile anappeal,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(2)(i)providesthatthe
affectedpartyor theattorneyor representativeof recordmustsubmitthecompleteappealwithin
30daysof serviceof theunfavorabledecision.If thedecisionwasmailed,theappealmustbe
filed within 33 days. See8 C.F.R.§ 103.8(b).Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 1.2explainsthat
whenthe lastdayof a periodfalls on a Saturday,Sunday,or legalholiday,the periodshallrun
until theendof thenextdaythatis nota Saturday,Sunday,or legalholiday. Thedateof filing is
not the date of submission,but the dateof actualreceiptwith the proper signatureand the
requiredfee. See8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(a)(7)(i).Thereceiptdateshallbe recordeduponreceiptby
USCIS.Id. Theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(1)providesthatanappealwhichis not
filed with thetimeallowedmustberejectedasimproperlyfiled.
TherecordindicatesthattheservicecenterissuedthedecisiondenyingthepetitiononNovember
13,2009. It is notedthattheservicecenterdirectorproperlygavenoticeto thepetitionerthatshe
had 33 daysto file the appeal. Neitherthe Act nor the pertinentregulationsgrantthe AAO
authorityto extendthistime limit. SeeMatterof Liadov,23 I&N Dec.990(BIA 2006). Evenif
theappealwasdelayedby theovernightdeliveryservice,theerrorwouldnot warrantspecial
considerationof theappeal.Id. AlthoughcounseldatedtheFormI-290BDecember10,2009,it
wasnot receivedby the servicecenteruntil December17,2009,or 34 daysafterthe decision
wasissued.Accordingly,theappealwasuntimelyfiled andwasrejectedby theAAO.
Onmotion,counselstates:
1. In its DenialdecisiondatedNovember13,2009,the USCISspecificallyinstructed
Petitionerto file herI-290BAppealwith theU.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity,
P.O.Box 852841,Mesquite,Texas75185-3841[SeeattachedI-140 Decisiondated
November 13, 2009: "...the appealmust be filed at the addressat the top of this
page."]
2. [The petitioner] duly posted her I-290[B] appeal visa USPS expressmail on
November15,2009;oneday prior to the statutorydeadlinefor filing [ReceiptNo:
EV934148671US].
3. U.S. PostalServiceRecordsindicatethat [the petitioner's] I-290[B] appealwas
deliveredto the subjectPostOffice on December16, 2009at 9:46AM. Notice of
deliverywaslikewisephysicallyplacedin the subjectUSCISP.O.Box at 11:04AM
that sameday. December16, 2009 was the 33'dday stipulatedby the USCIS as
withintheacceptabletimelimitsforreceiptbyUSCIS.
4. Furtherinquiry with the U.S. PostalServicerevealedthat the USCISemployeeor
agentresponsiblefor picking up USCISmail from its designatedpostoffice box on
December16,2009did not recoversaidmail until the next morning [5:30 am] of
Page3
December17,2009. Consequently,muchof the mail timely receivedat the subject
USCISmailboxonDecember16,2009duringnormalbusinesshourswasnotentered
into theUSCIS'sfiling systemonthefollowing day: December17,2009.
5. Theunfortunateandunfairresultof USCIS'snext-daypickupandprocessingof its
mail from the previous day causedthe AAO to erroneouslypresumethat the
Petitioner'sI-290B filing wasfiled lateunderSection103.5of the Codeof Federal
Regulations.
Onmotion,thepetitionersubmitsU.S.PostalService(USPS)"Track& ConfirmSearchResults"
stating:"Youritemwasdeliveredat5:20amonDecember17,2009in MESQUITE,TX 75185to
INS. Theitemwassignedfor by M SALCEDO." [Emphasisadded.] TheprecedingUSPS
informationfurther states: "ExpectedDelivery Date: December17, 2009." [Emphasisin
original.] Moreover,the AAO notesthat the USPSExpressMail mailing labelattachedto the
envelopein which the petitioner'sappealwasmailedincludesan informationblock listing the
"ScheduledDateof Delivery"asDecember17,2009. Further,theUSPSTrack& ConfirmSearch
Resultssubmittedby petitionerincludea"DetailedResults"sectionstating:"Delivered,December
17,2009,5:20am,MESQUITE,TX 75185."[Emphasisadded.]Finally,theAAO notesthatthe
USPSExpressMail envelopein whichthepetitioner'sappealwasmailedandthepetitioner'sForm
I-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,arebothdatestampedasreceivedby the servicecenteron
December17,2009.
Counselassertsthatthe"appealwasdeliveredto thesubjectPostOfficeonDecember16,2009at
9:46AM," but the documentationsubmittedon motion doesnot supporthis claim. The USPS
Track& Confirm"DetailedResults"sectionstates:"Arrival atUnit, December16,20099:46am,
MESQUITE,TX 75149"(emphasisadded),nottheservicecenter'szip codeof 75185. With
regardto counsel'sclaimsaslistedin items3 - 5 above,theassertionsof counselwill not satisfy
the petitioner's burdenof proof. The unsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constitute
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena,19I&N Dec. 533, 534n.2 (BIA 1988);Matter of Laureano, 19
I&N Dec.1,3n.2(BIA 1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(a)(7)(i)(2009),in effectat the time the petitioner'sappeal
wasfiled, stated,in pertinentpart: "An applicationor petitionreceivedin a USCISoffice shall
bestampedto showthetime anddateof actualreceiptand. . . shallberegardedasproperlyfiled
whensostamped,if it is signedandexecutedandtherequiredfiling feeis attachedor a waiver
of thefiling feeis granted."
A motionto reconsidera decisionon a petitionmust,whenfiled, establishthatthedecisionwas
incorrect basedon the evidenceof record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(3).TheAAO's March21,2011appellatedecisionwascorrectbasedontheevidence
of recordat thetime of the decisionbecausethepetitioner'sappealwasnot properlyfiled until
December17,2009. As theappealwasuntimelyfiled, theAAO wascorrectin rejectingthe
petitioner'sappeal.Moreover,the instantmotiondoesnot containa statementaboutwhetheror
not thevalidity of theunfavorabledecisionhasbeenor is thesubjectof anyjudicial proceeding
asrequiredby the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C). For this additionalreason,the
motionmustbedismissed.
Page4
The regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4)statesthat "[a] motionthat doesnot meetapplicable
requirementsshallbedismissed."Accordingly,themotionwill bedismissed,theproceedingswill
notbereopenedandreconsidered,andthepreviousdecisionsof thedirectorandtheAAO will not
bedisturbed.
ORDER: Themotionto reopenandreconsideris dismissed,the decisionof theAAO dated
March21,2011is affirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.