dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 4 mi 
WAC 04 172 52124 
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. 8 1153(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief . 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal. 
The matter is now before the AAO on motion. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Thus, the director denied the petition on 
May 1 9,2005. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicated that she would submit a brief andlor additional evidence within 30 
days. The petitioner dated the appeal June 17, 2005. On February 16, 2006, the AAO summarily 
dismissed the appeal after having received nothing hrther from the petitioner. 
On November 24, 2006, the petitioner, through counsel, files the instant "Motion Requesting the 
Service to Reconsider its Decision of May 19, 2005." By filing the previous appeal, however, the 
petitioner transferred jurisdiction to the MO, which issued the last decision on the matter. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii) provides that the "official having jurisdiction is the official who 
made the latest decision in the proceeding unless the affected party moves to a new jurisdiction." The 
official that made the latest decision is the AAO. Thus, our decision is the only decision the petitioner 
may now seek to reopen or reconsider. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) provides, in pertinent part: 
Any motion to reconsider an action by the Service filed by an applicant or petitibner 
must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider. Any 
motion to reopen a proceeding before the Service filed by an applicant or petitioner, 
must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen, except that 
failure to file before this period expires, may be excused in the discretion of the Service 
where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the control of 
the applicant or petitioner. 
The record reveals that the AA07s notice was mailed to the petitioner at her address of record at the 
time. The petitioner has not demonstrated that she advised the AAO of any change of address prior 
to the issuance of the February 16, 2006 decision. The mere fact that the petitioner was not 
previously represented does not demonstrate that the eight month delay in filing the motion was 
reasonable and beyond her control. 
According to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. According to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3), a,motion 
to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. 
Page 3 
In addition to being untimely, the most recent decision in this matter is the summary dismissal issued 
by the AAO on February 16,2006. That is the only decision the petitioner can seek to reopen. Nothing 
in the motion, however, suggests that the AAO's decision summarily dismissing the appeal was issued 
in error. Specifically, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the original appeal alleged any specific 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact either initially or in a subsequent filing submitted 
within the 30 day period in which the petitioner was permitted to supplement the appeal or even prior to 
the AAO's decision dated February 16,2006. 
As the motion is untimely filed and does not allege any error in the latest decision in the proceeding, it 
must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.