dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

'aa"@i% data deIeted to 
Prevent dearly un warranted 
kvasion of penow privacy 
US. Department of lIomeland Security 
U.S. Citlzenshlp and In~m~gratlon Servlces 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
- 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 4 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal with a finding of 
fraud. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(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. 
If the decision was mailed, the motion must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b). 
Service records reveal that the AAO's notice was mailed to the petitioner at his address of record at the 
I 
 time and to prior counsel at his address of record. The petitioner has not demonstrated that he or 
counsel advised the AAO of any change of address prior to the AAO's notice. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(E), relating to the filing requirements for motions, provides that a motion 
must be "[slubmitted to the office maintaining the record upon which the unfavorable decisions was 
made for forwarding to the official having jurisdiction." (Emphasis added.) 
The MO dismissed the petitioner's appeal on August 7, 2006. The instructions on the cover page of 
the decision stated that "[all1 documents have been returned to the ofjce that originally decided your 
case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office." (Emphasis added.) While prior counsel 
originally submitted the motion to the AAO, which was returned to prior counsel on September 7, 
2006, the motion was properly filed with the Nebraska Service Center on September 26,2006, 50 days 
after the AAO's decision. 
In light of the above, the motion is untimely. Moreover, given the language on the cover page of the 
initial decision by the AAO and in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(E), the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his failure to file a timely motion was beyond his control or due to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) error. Regardless, prior counsel indicated the motion was a motion 
to reconsider, not reopen. USCIS may only excuse the failure to time file a motion to reopen. 
Moreover, the filing did not constitute a proper motion at the time of filing. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.3(a)(2)(vii) allows for limited circumstances in which a petitioner can supplement an already- 
submitted appeal. This regulation, however, applies only to appeals, and not to motions to reopen or 
reconsider. There is no analogous regulation which allows a petitioner to submit new evidence in 
furtherance of a previously-filed motion. 
According to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. According to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3), 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 USCIS policy. 
The initial filing included a Form I-290B on which prior counsel asserted that the AAO had erred in its 
determination that the petitioner was ineligible for the classification sought and that the petitioner had 
willfully submitted a false document. Prior counsel asserted that he would submit a brief and or 
evidence to the AAO within 30 days. Subsequently, counsel supplemented the motion with a brief and 
a copy of the materials submitted on appeal. Counsel asserts that the petitioner's submission of a copy 
of what purports to be a Newsweek cover was inadvertent and that the AAO erred in finding that the 
petitioner's explanation lacked credibility.' 
The petitioner has not filed a proper motion to reopen or reconsider. His request, at the time it was 
filed, was not accompanied by any evidence or arguments based on precedent decisions. A request for 
motion must meet the regulatory requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider at the time it isfiled; 
no provision exists for USCIS to grant an extension in order to await future correspondence that may or 
may not include evidence or arguments. 
As the motion was untimely filed, the motion must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed. 
I 
 On April 6, 2006, the AAO requested the original of the cover because the magazine title is at an angle, the 
issue is undated, the petitioner's story is the only story listed on the cover and no accompanying story was 
submitted. In response, the petitioner submitted the "original" in his possession but conceded that it was 
probably not an authentic magazine cover although it was presented to him as such. The document submitted 
in response to the AA07s April 6, 2006 notice is on FujiFilm photograph paper. The AAO concluded that 
the petitioner's assertion that he mistakenly believed he was featured on the cover of a major international 
magazine lacked credibility.