dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Mechanics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 21, 2024 In Re: 30587450 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree and an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification or that a waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed 
the Petitioner's subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and 
reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Motions to reopen or reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the decision, or 33 days if the decision 
is served by mail. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of mailing, 
but the date users received the intended motion: (1) completed, signed, and accompanied by the 
required fee as specified by the Form r-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, instructions; and (2) at the 
location that those instructions designate for filing motions. See 8 e.F.R. §§ 103.2(a)(l) and 
103.2( a)( 6). users may, in its discretion, excuse the untimely filing of a motion to reopen where the 
record demonstrates that the delay was reasonable and beyond the control of the applicant. 8 e.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). There is no comparable authority to excuse an untimely filed motion to reconsider. 
See id. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on August 28, 2023. The Petitioner was afforded 30 days plus 
three days for service by mail to file a motion to reopen and/or reconsider our decision. users did 
not receive the completed and signed Form r-290B with the required fee at the designated users 
location until October 6, 2023, 39 days after our decision was issued. 
As noted, the late filing of the Petitioner's motion to reconsider may not be excused. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). With respect to his motion to reopen, the Petitioner has the burden to establish that 
the late filing was reasonable and beyond his control and should therefore be excused. Here, the 
Petitioner does not provide an explanation for the untimely filing of the motion; therefore, he has not 
met this burden. We therefore will not exercise our discretion to excuse the late filing of his motion 
to reopen. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that his delay in filing his motion to reopen was reasonable 
and beyond his control, such that his untimely filing should be excused in users' discretion under 
8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). Moreover, we have no authority to excuse the late filing of his motion to 
reconsider. Accordingly, we will dismiss the motions. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2