dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
tJ.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOmce(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve_ N.W.. MS2090
Washinuton.DC 20529-2090
t cleady w atM U.S.Citizenship
. and Immigration
Services
$1JBLICCO
DATE: FEB 1 5 2012 Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievethelawwasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat8C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the officethatoriginallydecidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion,with a feeof $630.Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmust
befiledwithin 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter. The AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) dismisseda subsequent
appeal.Thepetitionerfiled a motionto reopenandreconsiderwhichwasalsodismissedby the
AAO. Thematteris nowbeforetheAAO on asubsequentmotionto reconsider.Themotionwill
bedismissedpursuantto 8 C.F.R.§§103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C),103.5(a)(3),and103.5(a)(4).
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)provides:
Filing Requirements- A motion shall be submittedon Form I-290B, and may be
accompaniedby abrief. It mustbe:
(A) In writing andsignedby the affectedpartyor theattorneyor representativeof
record,if any;
(B) Accompaniedbyanonrefundablefeeassetforthin § 103.7;
(C) Accompaniedby a statementabout whether or not the validity of the
unfavorabledecisionhasbeenor isthesubjectof anyjudicial proceedingand,if so,
thecourt,nature,date,andstatusor resultof theproceeding;
(D) Addressedtotheofficial havingjurisdiction;and;
(E) Submittedto the office maintainingthe recordupon which the unfavorable
decisionwasmadefor forwardingto theofficialhavingjurisdiction.
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)statesthat a motion to reconsider"must be filed
within 30 daysof the decisionthat the motionseeksto reconsider." [Emphasisadded.] A
motionto reconsidermuststatethereasonsfor reconsiderationandbesupportedby anypertinent
precedentdecisionsto establishthatthedecisionwasbasedon anincorrectapplicationof law or
United StatesCitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)policy. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3).A
motionthatdoesnotmeetapplicablerequirementsshallbedismissed.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4).
The July 8, 2010 AAO decisiondismissingthe petitioner'smotion to reopenand reconsider
stated:
A motionto reopenmuststatethenewfactsto beprovidedandbesupportedby affidavits
or otherdocumentaryevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).Basedon the plain meaningof
"new," a newfactis foundto beevidencethatwasnot availableandcouldnot havebeen
discoveredorpresentedin thepreviousproceeding.As citedabove,withtheexceptionof
the three documentslisted, the petitioner submittedevidencewhich was previously
submitted,and therefore,will not be consideredin this motion. Regardingthe three
documentssubmittedfor thefirsttimeonmotion,thepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
documentssubmittedon motionwerenotavailableandcouldnothavebeendiscovered
orpresentedpreviously.
Page3
TheAAO's July 8, 2010decisionalsostatedthatthepetitionerfailedto supporthis July 28,
2009 motion with any legal argument,precedentdecisions,or other comparableevidenceto
establishthattheAAO's June29,2009appellatedecisionwasbasedon anincorrectapplication
of law or USCISpolicy.
Thepetitionerfiled theinstantmotiononAugust6, 2010within thirty daysof theAAO's July 8,
2010decision. Thedocumentationsubmittedby the petitionerin supportof the instantmotion
doesnot establishthattheAAO's latestdecisionwasincorrectbasedon anincorrectapplication
of law or USCISpolicy. Ratherthan pointing to specificerrorsin the AAO's July 8, 2010
decision,the petitionerinsteadconteststhe correctnessof the servicecenterdirector'sdecision.
For example,the petitionerasserts:"The Directorof theNebraskaServiceCenter(hereinafter
"the Director") misappliedthe law . . . in finding that the documentaryevidencesubmittedby
[thepetitioner]in supportof his petitionwasnot in andof itself indicativeof sustainednational
or internationalacclaim. . . ." Thepetitioner'sinstantmotiondoesnot includelegalarguments
or precedentdecisionsindicatingthattheAAO's latestdecisiondismissinghis motionto reopen
andreconsiderwasincorrectbasedontheevidenceof record. Moreover,theinstantmotiondoes
not containthestatementaboutwhetheror notthevalidityof theunfavorabledecisionhasbeenor
is the subject of any judicial proceedingas required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C).Forthis additionalreason,themotionmustbedismissed.
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4)statesthat "[a] motion that doesnot meetapplicable
requirementsshallbe dismissed." Accordingly,the motion will be dismissedandthe previous
decisionsof thedirectorandtheAAO will notbedisturbed.
ORDER: Themotionto reconsideris dismissed,thedecisionof theAAO datedJuly 8, 2010
is affirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.