dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
DATE: 
JUL 2 7 2012 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Iklll'ficiary: 
U.S. Department of lIomdand Sl'l"IlI-it\ 
U.S. CitiJ:cnship and Immigratioll ~l'n I,' 
Administrative Appeals OfricL' (/\ '\() I 
2U Ma~~achu::,clh Aw .. N.W .. M~ .:'IILJII 
Washington, DC 2()S29·209() 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITI()N: Illlmigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant 10 SCl'liull 
2()3(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, S U,S,c. ~ IISJ(h)( 1)(A) 
ON llEHAI.F OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Encioseu pic"se tinu the uecision of the Administrative Appeals Olliee in your case. All of the uocllmelll' 
relateu to this matler have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised th,11 
any funher inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you hclic\'c the ;\1\0 inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or )iOU have addill(ll1,iI 
inform,ltioll thai you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to rcopen in 
aL'L'llrdanCl' \\ illl Ihe instructions on Form 1-29011, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc DI S6J(). Thl 
'pecilic requirement' lor liling such a motion can be found at S C.F.R. § 103.5. 00 not tile any motinll 
directly with the AAO. Please he aware that H C.F,R. § 103,S(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to he filed Willl1l1 
J() da!" (11 the dcci~i()11 that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
ThanK YOU. 
Perr\' Rhew 
Chicr. ;\dmi!lI";lrali\'C Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCl'SS(ON: Thc Director. Texas Service Ccnter, denied the employment-based immigrant \i", 
pctition on tkccmhcr 23, 2lJO<), The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld the direeto"', 
decision. and dismissed the appeal on June 1, 20l L The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to 
reopen and a motion to reconsider. Thc motion will be dismissed. 
In order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 103.S(a)(1 )(i) provides that the affected 
party or the attorney or reprcsentative of record must submit the complete motion within 30 days 01 
service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, the motion must be filed within .,,, 
days. See 8 CF.R. § Im.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of submission, but the date of actu;d 
receipt with the required fee. See 8 CF.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the AAO issued the decision on June l, 20 ll. It is noted that the AAO 
properiv ~a\T notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the motion. The notice further advi.sed: 
"If you helieye the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you h;IVl' 
additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or ;1 
motion til reopen. The specific requircments for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.I.R. 
* 1m.'). AIIllllltions Illust be submitted to the officc that originally decided your case ... " 
Counsel dated the Illotion June 29, 2011. However, despite the clear instructions in the J\J\O's notiC!' 
and I)n thl' hll'lll 1-21)OB. counsel sent the motion to the AAO. On July 6, 2011, the AAO returned the 
nHltion CIS illlpl1lperly filed with the wrong office. U.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS I 
received the tllotion on July 12,2011,41 days after the AAO issued the decision. Accordingly. the 
Illotioll W;IS untimely filed. Moreover, with respect to the motion to reopen, given the language Oil the 
COVer page III the initial decision by the AAO and in the regulation at 8 CER. ~ 103.5(a)(I)(iii)(E). thl 
petitioncr has Illlt demonstrated that the failure to tile a timely motion was beyond the petitioner', 
cOlltml or due to USCIS error. 
In addition. the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1033(a)(2)(vii) allows for limited circumstances in which ;1 
petitioner Gill supplement an already-submitted appeal. This regulation, however, applies only til 
appeaLs. ami Ilot to motions to reopen or reconsider. There is no analogous regulation which alio\\, a 
petitiolll'r to submit new evidence in furtherance of a previously-filed motion. 
;\Cl'ordill~ til l' c'F.R. * I03.S(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided alld hl' 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. According to 8 eER. § 103.5(a)(3), a motioll 
to recollsider mu"i state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisiolls to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. 
The petitioner has not filed a proper motion to reopen or reconsider. At the time of filing, his retjuest 
was nllt accompanied by any evidence or arguments based on precedent decisions. A request III I' 
mlltion IllILs! Illeet the regulatory requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider atti1c tim!' it is/ill'll: 
Illl provision nists for USCIS to grant an extension in order to await future correspondence that may 01 
may not illclude evidence or arguments. 
Page ~ 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 2') I 01 
the ;\c\. K U.s.c. * Uol. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. The motion to reconsider is dismissed. The decision 01 
the ;\;\0 dated June 1, 20l 1, is affirmed, and the petition remains denied.