dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

detaödetedto
dyunwarranted
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE:DEC1 5 2011OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETlTION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethelawwasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat 8C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoflice thatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion,with afeeof $630.Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.S(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmust
befiled within 30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petition was deniedby the Director,
TexasServiceCenter. The petitionerfiled a subsequentappeal. The AdministrativeAppeals
Office (AAO) determinedthat the appealwas not filed in a timely mannerand rejectedthe
appeal.Thematteris now beforethe AAO on a motionto reopenandreconsider.Themotions
will bedismissed.
Thedirectordeniedthe petition on August 11,2009. On September15,2009,counselfor the
petitionerfiled anappealseekingreviewof thedirector'sdecision. After reviewingthe record,
theAAO rejectedtheappealasit hasnotbeenfiled in atimely manner.Specifically,theappeal
was filed 35 days after the decision was issued in which the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.3(a)(2)(i)requiresthe appealto be filed within 30 daysafter serviceof the unfavorable
decision. If the decisionwasmailed,the appealmust be filed within 33 days. See8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5a(b).The dateof filing is not the dateof mailing, but the dateof actualreceipt. See8
C.F.R.§ 103.2(a)(7)(i).NeithertheAct northepertinentregulationsgranttheAAO authorityto
extendthe 33-daytime limit for filing an appeal. As indicatedin the AAO's July 8, 2010
decision,theregulationsrequirethatanappealwhich is not timely filed within thetime allowed
mustberejectedasimproperlyfiled. See8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(1).
Onmotion,counselarguesthat "[w]e arein receiptof your noticeof denial. . . indicatingthat
the appealis denied,andfurtherindicatingthatthis decisioncanbe put in to a re-openhearing
by filing form I-290B." Again, theAAO did not denytheappeal;rathertheAAO rejectedthe
appealnotingthatthe lateappealwould not betreatedasa motionbecauseit failedto meetthe
applicablerequirements. There was no finding nor is therean applicableregulationthat a
rejectedappealcanbe"put in to are-openhearing"uponthefiling of a subsequentI-290B.
A motionto reopenmust statethe new factsto be providedandbe supportedby affidavitsor
otherdocumentaryevidence.See8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).Basedontheplainmeaningof"new,"
a newfact is foundto beevidencethatwasnot availableandcouldnot havebeendiscoveredor
presentedin thepreviousproceeding.'Althoughcounselgenerallyarguesin his brief onmotion
that the petitioneris eligible for classificationas an alien of extraordinaryability pursuantto
section203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct, counseldid not argueor provide
any documentaryevidenceto demonstratethat the AAO erroneouslyrejectedthe petitioner's
originalappeal.A reviewof counsel'sbrief on motionrevealsno fact thatcouldbeconsidered
"new" under8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)and, therefore,cannotbe considereda properbasisfor a
motionto reopen.Motionsfor the reopeningof immigrationproceedingsaredisfavoredfor the
samereasonsasarepetitionsfor rehearingand motionsfor a new trial on the basisof newly
discoveredevidence.INSv.Doherty,502U.S.314,323(1992)(citing1NSv.Abudu,485U.S.94
(1988)). A party seekingto reopena proceedingbearsa "heavyburden." INS v. Abudu,485
U.S. at 110. With the currentmotion,the petitionerhasnot met that burden. The motion to
reopenwill bedismissed.
Theword"new"isdefinedas"1. havingexistedorbeenmadefor onlyashorttime. . . 3.Justdiscovered,found,or
learned <new evidence> . . . ." WEBSTER'SII NEW RIVERSIDEUN1VERSITYDICTIONARY792 (1984)(emphasisin
original).
Page3
A motion to reconsidermust statethe reasonsfor reconsiderationandbe supportedby any
pertinent precedentdecisionsto establishthat the decision was basedon an incorrect
applicationof law or U.S.CitizenshipandImmigration(USCIS)policy. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3).
A motionto reconsiderconteststhe correctnessof the originaldecisionbasedon theprevious
factualrecord,asopposedto a motion to reopenwhich seeksa newhearingbasedon newor
previouslyunavailableevidence.SeeMatterofCerna,20I&N Dec.399,403(BIA 1991).
A motion to reconsidercannotbe usedto raisea legalargumentthat could havebeenraised
earlierin the proceedings.Rather,the "additionallegal arguments"that may be raisedin a
motionto reconsidershouldflow from newlaw or a denovolegaldeterminationreachedin its
decisionthatmaynot havebeenaddressedby theparty. Further,amotionto reconsideris not
aprocessby whichapartymaysubmit,in essence,thesamebrief presentedonappealandseek
reconsiderationby generallyaIIegingerror in the prior decision. Instead,the moving party
must specify the factual and legal issuesraisedon appealthat were decidedin error or
overlookedin theinitial decisionor mustshowhowachangein law materiallyaffectstheprior
decision.SeeMatterofMedrano,20I&N Dec.216,219(BIA 1990,1991).
Again,counselfails to provideanyspecificargumentregardingerroron thepartof theAAO in
rejectingtheappeal. Themotionto reconsidermustbedismissed.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291
of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: The motions are dismissed,the decisionof the AAO datedJuly 8, 2010, is
affirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.