dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3042,425 I Street. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20536 
Qt*b+ U.S. Citizenship 
FILE: EAC 01 223 50335 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
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. 4 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ded your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I 
i$?20bert P. Wiemann, Director 
, Administrative Appeals Office 
i; 
EAC 01 223 50335 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. On December 3, 2003, the AAO 
dismissed two motions to reopen as one did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen the AAO's decision 
and the other was untimely and did not address all of the AAO's bases for dismissal. The matter is now before 
the AAO on a new motion. The motion will be dismissed. 
The AAO dismissed the appeal on March 24, 2003. On April 17, 2003, Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) received a motion and fee from the petitioner stating that the letter constituted his motion to reopen "the 
case of application of suspension of deportation" dismissed "in the early 90's." CIS received a motion relating to 
the AAO's decision on May 17,2003. 
On December 3, 2003, the MO dismissed both motions. The AAO concluded that the April 17, 2003 motion 
did not address any issues under the jurisdiction of the AAO. The AAO then concluded that the May 17, 2003 
motion addressed only one of the bases of the AAO's appellate decision, lack of an advanced degree, and was 
untimely. The AAO noted that the petitioner was able to prepare a timely submission, as evidenced by the first 
motion, but did not submit a timely motion relating to the AAO's March 24,2003 decision. 
In his current motion, the petitioner raises humanitarian issues. He submits December 2003 e-mail 
correspondence between him and an attorney regarding return of his immigration file from the attorney. The 
current motion, filed January 4, 2004, is timely. The December 2003 e-mail correspondence does not address 
why the May 17,2003 motion was not timely submitted. 
According to 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. According to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(3), a motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. 
The current motion is not supported with evidence or legal arguments addressing the bases of the AAO's 
December 3, 2003 decision: that the motion was late and did not address all of the AAO's appellate concerns. 
Rather, the current motion is based mostly on humanitarian concerns relating to the petitioner's length of 
residence in the United States, an irrelevant consideration for the visa classification sought. 
The petitioner has not filed a proper motion to reopen or reconsider. His request was not accompanied by any 
evidence or arguments based on precedent decisions. A request for motion must meet the regulatory 
requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider at the time it is$filed; no provision exists for the Service to grant 
an extension in order to await future correspondence that may or may not include evidence or arguments. 
Finally, 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, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seelung to reopen a proceeding bears a 
"heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that burden. 
The motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.