dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529·2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 13 2.01'1 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.C. § I I 53(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition on May 22, 2008. 
On June 18, 2008, the petitioner filed a Form 1-290B appealing the matter to the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO). The appeal was dismissed in a decision dated June 18,2009. The matter is currently before 
the AAO on a second appeal. The Form 1-290B, which was filed on July 17,2009, seeks a second appeal of 
the director's decision dated May 22, 2008. The appeal will be rejected as improperly filed. 
As indicated above, the petitioner has already sought appellate review of the director's May 22, 2008 decision 
in which the petition was denied. The AAO provided a comprehensive review of the petitioner's submissions 
and fully addressed all pertinent points. The AAO notes that there is no statutory or regulatory provision that 
permits the petitioner to file more than one appeal with regard to the same petition. Similarly it is noted that 
there is also no statutory or regulatory provision allowing the petitioner to appeal a prior AAO decision. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(ii). Although the AAO has jurisdiction to review its own appellate decision on motion 
to reopen or reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § !03.5(a), provided that the petitioner files a timely motion on 
Form 1-290B, the petitioner in the present matter clearly filed an appeal. As there is no law or regulation 
permitting the filing of multiple appeals of the same petition, the petitioner's second appeal must be rejected. 
Additionally, with regard to counsel's claim that the prior adverse decisions were the result of ineffective 
assistance from the petitioner's prior counsel, the AAO cautions counsel that any appeal or motion based upon 
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires: (I) that the claim be supported by an affidavit of the 
allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in detail the agreement that was entered into with counsel with 
respect to the actions to be taken and what representations counsel did or did not make to the respondent in 
this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity or competence is being impugned be informed of the allegations 
leveled against him and be given an opportunity to respond, and (3) that the appeal or motion reflect whether 
a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities with respect to any violation of counsel's 
ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), affd, 
857 F.2d !O (I st Cir. 1988). In the present matter, the petitioner has not met the required criteria. Therefore, 
even if the current appeal were not being rejected, it would have been dismissed based upon the merits of the 
petitioner's argument. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.