dismissed EB-1A Case: Wrestling

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
. e Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
PUBLICCOPY
DATE: APR 0 2 2012 OFFICE:TEXAS SERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthatany
further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemust be madeto that office.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyou wishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbesubmittedto
the office that originally decidedyour caseby filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appealor Motion, with a fee of
$630. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requiresthat any motion must be filed within 30 daysof the
decisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Thedirector,TexasServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetition
onNovember10,2009.TheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) dismissedthepetitioner'sappealof the
director'sadversedecisionOnMay9,2011. OnJune10,2011,thepetitionerfiled asecondappealwith the
AAO. Theappealwill berejected.
Thepetitioner,who is alsothebeneficiary,seeksclassificationasan"alienof extraordinaryability" in the
athletics,specifically,asa wrestler,pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationality
Act (theAct or INA), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).
OnMay 9, 2011,theAAO affirmedthedirector'sNovember10,2009adversedecisionanddismissedthe
petitioner'sappeal. In its decision,the AAO instructedthe petitionerthatif he believesthat the AAO
appliedthelaw inappropriatelyin reachingthedecision,or if hehasadditionalinformationthathewishes
theAAO to consider,he"mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen."Insteadof filing sucha
motion,on June10,2011,thepetitionerfiled a secondNoticeof Appealor Motion,FormI-290B. On
pages1 and2 of theFormI-290B,counselindicatedthatheis filing anappealof theAAO's May 9, 2011
decision.1TheAAO, however,doesnothavejurisdictionoveranappealof itsowndecision.
The authorityto adjudicateappealsis delegatedto the AAO by the Secretaryof the Departmentof
HomelandSecurity(DHS)pursuantto theauthorityvestedin him or herthroughtheHomelandSecurity
Act of 2002,Pub.L. 107-296.SeeDHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch 1,2003);8 C.F.R.§
2.1 (2003). The AAO exercisesappellatejurisdiction over the matters describedat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003).Accordingly,theappealisnotproperlywithin theAAO'sjurisdiction.
TheAAO doesnothavejurisdictionovertheinstantappeal,whichisanappealof theAAO's owndecision.
Accordingly,theappealmustberejected,asit wasnotproperlyfiled. See8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(1).
ORDER: Theappealisrejected.
Althoughcounsel'sbrief accompanyingtheJune10,2011FormI-290B is entitled"Motion to Reconsider,"his FormI-
290Bclearlyindicatesthatheintendedto file anappeal.