dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
i' .. ;; •. 
DATE: JAN 2 9 20\3 ·. OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: · 
Beneficiary: 
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 · 
ahd Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: . 
INSTRUCfiONS: 
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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reConsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of$630. The 
specific requirements for filing such· a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 10~.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. · 
Thank you, 
~on Rosenbe 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis;gov 
(b)(6)
· Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Setvice Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The. petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider that de~ision. The director dismissed 
the motion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO 
will dismiss the appeal. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on January 20, 2012. The director denied the petition on 
August' 17, 2012. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider that decision on September 14, 
2012. The director 
dismissed that motion on October 11, 2012, having'ooncluded that the filing did not 
meet the regulatory requirements of a motion to reopen at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) or those of.a motion to 
reconsider at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)~ 
The AAO notes that, in the September 2012 motion, counsel stated: "If this Motion is denied, we ask 
that it be forwarded to the Administrative Appeals Office for further review and approval on appeal." 
While the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)(2)(iii) provides that "the reviewing official may treat 
[an] appeal as a motion to reopen or reconsider and .take favorable action," there exists no reciprocal 
provision permitting the reviewing offiCial to treat a motion as an appe~ and forward it to the AAO for 
. adjudication. 
The petitioner's appeal, filed October 29, 2012, is virtually identical to 'the motion filed previously. It 
contains the same evidentiary exhibits, and a brief from counsel that is almost exactly the same as the 
brief previously submitted on motion. The director already took that motion into consideration, and 
found it insufficient to warrant approval of the petition. The petitioner adds nothing of substance to 
the record by repeating the same claims on appeal. Because all of the appellate language existed prior 
to the denial notice, it identifies no specific error of fact or law in the denial notice. The petitioner 
adds no. new claims or evidence to address the most recent decision, i.e., the dismissal of the motion. 
The petitioner, instead, contests the director's first decision with no reference to the intetvening motion 
and the director's dismissal thereof. 
The matter on appeal is not the August 2012 denial of the petition, but the October 2012 dismissal of 
the motion to reopen and reconsider. The petitioner must overcome the October 2012 dismissal of the 
motion before the AAO will revisit the merits of any earlier decision. The present filing is not a timely 
appeal of the original denial decision, and the AAO will not treat it as though it were. 
The petitioner, on appeal, makes no evident attempt to rebut.or overcome the October 2012 dismissal of 
the motion. Instead, the petitioner essentially appeals the denial as though the motion and its dismissal 
never happened. Therefore, the petitioner has not shown that the AAO should withdraw the director's 
dismissal of the motion in order to clear the way for review of the underlying denial. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
Because counsel has failed to identify specifically a~ erroneous conclusion of law or a state~ent of fact 
in the director-'s last decision, counsel has specified no acceptable basis for the appeal and the AAO 
must summarily 
dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.