dismissed EB-2

dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Unknown

Decision Summary

The motion was dismissed because it was untimely filed. The motion was submitted 47 days after the AAO's previous decision, exceeding the 30-day filing period (plus three days for mailing) as required by regulation. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable or beyond their control.

Criteria Discussed

Not specified

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
b5- 
SRC 05 065 50033 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1153(b)(2) 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before the 
AAO on motion. The motion will be dismissed. 
The motion is untimely. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i), states that a motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen or reconsider. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.a(b) states that whenever a person is required to act within a prescribed period after the service of 
a notice upon him and the notice is served by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period. 
Here, the AAO mailed its decision to the petitioner on November 28, 2005. The motion is dated 
January 13,2006,47 days after the AAO's decision. The decision was properly received by the Service 
Center on January 17,2006. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i) provides that a late motion to reopen 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 petitioner has also failed to explain why the two week delay 
was reasonable or beyond its control. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.