dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privet) 
PuBLK: COPY 
US. Departmc.rrt of Hnnreland Sceurily 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Imigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 155 52953 
 JAN 1 4 2010 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1 153(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. 3 103.5 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. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
E~erry Rhew 
g- Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) rejected the petitioner's appeal of that 
decision on June 22, 2009, but remanded the matter to the director for consideration as a motion to 
reconsider. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed, 
the previous decision of the AAO rejecting the appeal and remanding the matter to the director will be 
affirmed, and the petition will remain denied. 
On motion, counsel argues that the AAO erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal as untimely. In 
support of her claim, counsel submits the FED EX Airbill and tracking and delivery confirmation 
which indicates that counsel erroneously submitted the appeal to the California Service Center on 
June 16,2008. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides in part that the affected party must file the 
complete appeal "with the office where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after 
service of the decision." If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 
C.F.R. 9 103.5a(b). 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(l) provides: 
General. Every application, petition, appeal, motion, request, or other document submitted 
on the form prescribed by this chapter shall be executed and filed in accordance with the 
instructions on the form, such instructions (including where an application or petition should 
be filed) being hereby incorporated into the particular section of the regulations in this 
chapter requiring its submission. 
Part 1 of the instructions for the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, filed by the petitioner 
states: "You must file your appeal with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
office that made the unfavorable decision within 30 calendar days after service of the decision (33 
days if your decision was mailed)." 
Moreover, the record indicates that the Director, Nebraska Service Center, issued the decision on May 
13, 2008. It is noted that the director clearly and properly gave notice to the petitioner that the 
appeal "must be filed with the Nebraska Service Center, P.O. Box 82521, Lincoln, NE 68501- 
2521." As documented by counsel, however, the appeal was incorrectly submitted to the California 
Service Center on June 16,2008. The C:alifornia Service Center then forwarded the Form I-290B to the 
Nebraska Service Center, which received the appeal on June 25, 2008, 43 days after the decision was 
issued. 
As indicated in our June 22, 2009 decision, the regulations require that an appeal which is not timely 
filed within the time allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
As the appeal was not filed with the Nebraska Service Center within the time allowed, it was 
properly rejected as untimely. 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. 
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)(citing INS 17. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to 
reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current 
motion, as the petitioner has failed to establish any error on the part of USCIS, that burden has not 
been met. Additionally, as counsel failed to submit the instant motion with the required fee, it is not 
considered as properly filed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(B). Accordingly, the 
motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The motion to reopen is dismissed, the decision of the AAO dated June 22, 2009 
rejecting the appeal and remanding the matter to the director is affirmed, and the 
petition remains denied.