dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 1. 3 2013 
IN RE:. Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
I· 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services· 
FILE: 
PETITION:lmmigrant 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.~:§ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your c(!se must be'made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching iis decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-490B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such ~ motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
c#~--
Ron Rosenberg · 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition on May 11, 2012. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen the director's decision on 
June 6, 2012. The director dismissed the petitioner's motions on October 2, 2012. The matter is now 
before the AAO on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) states that an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. The petitioner's appeal relates to the director's latest decision, which was a motion to 
reopen and a motion to reconsider, dated October 2, 2012. The present appeal is limited to 
addressing the elements contained within the director's latest decision dated, October 2, 2012. The 
director's findings within the motion decision related to the following issues: 
1. The evidence submitted with the motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen 
as none of the evidence contained new facts that were previously unavailable. A motion to 
reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be· supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. This is a primary requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Based 
on the plain meaning of "new," a new fact is found to be evidence that was not available and 
could not have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. 1 New evidence is 
considered to be material to the present case and not previously submitted. This "new" 
evidence is expected to convey new value or new meaning to the case. 
2. The director also noted that some of the evidence was dated after the petition ' s filing date. A 
petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was not 
qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter 
ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg') Comm'r 1971). · 
3. The director's decision on the motion also noted that the petitioner's motion did not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider as .it was not supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions. This is a primary requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), which requires the 
filing party to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
USCIS policy and that the director's decision was incorrect based on the evidence on record 
at the time of the initial decision. 
The petitioner's present appeal does not relate to any of the eiements enumerated above from the 
director's October 2, 2012, decision. Instead, he asserts that the director. did not correctly interpret 
the evidence in either decision. The petitioner fails, however, to explain how the evidence submitted 
on motion was "new" in that it was not previously available but also related to the petitioner's 
I The word "new" is defined as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time . ~ . 3. Just discovered, 
found, or learned <new evidence> . " Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary 792 (1984) 
· (Emphasis in original.) 
(b)(6)
Pc:tge 3 
eligibility as of the date of filing. As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated a proper basis for the 
present appeal. 
As stat!;!d in the reguhition at 8 CF.R. § ,103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party fails to i~entify Specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for 
the appeal. Cf Idy v: Holder; 674 F.3d 111, 116 (1St Cir. 2012) (where an alien fails to raise any 
legal issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals · denial of an inadmissibility waiver, the 
Court of Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 "F. App'x 
433, 435 .(11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned); Tedder 
v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming abandoned an i&sue raised in the 
statement of issues but not anywhere else .in the brief). In this instance, the petitioner has not 
sufficiently identified a basis for the appeal. The petitioner does not contest the director's specific 
findings contained within the decision on the petitioner's motions, and offers no substantive basis for 
the filing of the appeal. . As,guch, the appeal must be s~mmarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.