dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE : SEP 1 8 20t3FFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigrati_on Services 
Adfilinistrative App:eals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and 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)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153{b)(2){A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office {AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law not establish agerwy 
policy through non-precedent decisions 
Thank you, 
, y(/'? 
//-).-­
~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION; Tbe Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa .petition ·on December 29, 2011. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) rejected the 
petitioner's appeal of that decision on December 26, 2012. The matter is before the AAO ag&in on a 
motion to reopen. The motion to reopen will be rejected. 
The petitioner was properly notified that an appeal must be filed within 30 days of service. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(i). If the unfavorable decision was· mailed, the appeal must b~ filed within 33 days. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b ). The filing date is the actl1al cJ~te of receipt at the location des.ignated for filing. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). As the appeal was untimely, it was rejected as improperly filed. Neither 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, nor the regulations, grant the AAO authority to extend t_his 
time limit. Counsel asserts . that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received the 
appeal within 30 days of counsel's receipt of the director's decision. However, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b) states that "[s]ervice by mail is complete upon mailing." 
As the appe&l was rejected by the AAO, there is no decision on the part of the AAO that may be 
reopened in this proceeding. The AAO also declines to reopen the matter on on its own motion, as 
Counsel has not demonstrated that the rejection was in error. · 
Even if the motion were not rejected, it would be dismissed for failing to meet an applicable 
requirement. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C) requires that motions be 
"[a]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the t~nfavorable decision has 
been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding." In this matter, the motion does not contain the 
required statement. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not 
meet applicable requirements must be dismissed . 
. Furthermore, a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Motions for the reopening of 
immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing and 
motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U~S. 314, 
3~-3 , (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)). "There is a strong public interest in 
bringing litigation to a close as promptly as is consistent with the interest in giving the adversaries a 
fait opportunity to develop and present their respective cases.'' INS v. Abudu ~ 485 at 107; :S<i_sed on 
its discretion, ''[T]he [USC IS] has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a c&se. [USCIS] should 
have the right to be restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will petniit endless delay of 
deportation by aliens creative &nd fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts 
sufficient to establish aprima facie case." /d. at 108. The result also needlessly wastes the time and 
efforts of the triers Of fact who must attend to the filing requests. !d. A p&rty seeking to reopen a 
proceeding bears a ''~eavy burden." /d. at UO. With the current motion, the petitioner has not met 
that burden. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
In visa petition proceedings, it is th,e petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U;S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is rejected.