dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Not Specified

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyuawarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
ptJBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: g[[ 2 1 2011 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
DegreeoranAlienof ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotiontoreconsideroramotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be foundat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,
with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbe filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition.TheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)summarilydismissedthepetitioner'sappealfrom
thatdecision.ThematterisnowbeforetheAAO onamotionto reconsider.TheAAO will dismissthe
motion.
Thepetitionerfiled the FormI-140petitionon September3, 2008. Thedirectorinitially deniedthe
petitionon June17,2009. Thepetitionerfiledanappealon July20,2009,requestinganadditional60
daysto gatheradditionalevidence.Morethana yearelapsedwith no furthersubmissionfrom the
petitioner,andtheAAO summarilydismissedtheappealon September7,2010,asrequiredby theU.S.
CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)regulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v).
In its dismissalnotice,theAAO informedthepetitionerthat,if it wishedto file a motionto reopenor
reconsider,"[a]1lmotionsmustbe submittedto the office that originally decided[the] case." The
instructionsto FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,state:"Do not sendyourappealor motion
directlytotheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)"(emphasisinoriginal).
Any motion to reconsideranactionby USCIS filed by anapplicantor petitionermustbe filed within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsider.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i).If USCIS
servedthe decisionby mail, the petitionermust properly file the motion within 33 days. See
8 C.F.R.§ 103.5a(b).Thedateof filing is not the dateof mailing, but the dateof actualreceipt.
Every application,petition, appeal,motion, request,or other documentsubmittedon the form
prescribedby this chaptershallbe executedandfiled in accordancewith the instructionson the form
(includingwhereanapplicationor petitionshouldbefiled). See8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(a)(1).
On October8, 2010,the AAO receivedthe petitioner'smotionto reconsider.Thepetitionerhad
submittedthe motion directly to the AAO despitespecificinstructionsnot to do so. The AAO
returnedthe motion,whichthepetitionerlaterrefiledwith theTexasServiceCenteron October25,
2010. Thepetitionerdid not file the motion accordingto the instructions(including whereto file the
motion) until 48 days after the decision for which the petitioner sought reconsideration.
Accordingly, thepetitionerdid not properlyfile a timely motion.
A motion that doesnot meetapplicablerequirementsshallbe dismissed. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4).
Becausethemotionwasuntimelyfiled,theAAO mustdismissthemotion.
Furthermore,a motionto reconsidermuststatethereasonsfor reconsiderationandbe supportedby
anypertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthatthedecisionwasbasedon anincorrectapplication
of law or USCISpolicy. A motionto reconsidera decisionon anapplicationor petitionmust,when
filed, alsoestablishthatthedecisionwasincorrectbasedontheevidenceof recordatthetime of the
initialdecision.8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3).
In this instance,thepetitioner,on motion,doesnot establishthattheAAO's summarydismissalwas
basedonanincorrectapplicationof lawor USCISpolicy. Thepetitionerdoesnotaddressthesummary
dismissalatall. Instead,thepetitionerarguesthemeritsof theunderlyingpetition. Theopportunityfor
Page3
thepetitionerto dosowason appeal.At thattime,thepetitionerpresentedno argumentsor evidence,
insteadfalselyclaimingthatsuchevidencewasforthcomingatalaterdate.
The petitioneralsosubmitsdocumentation,includingjob announcements(datedafterthe petition's
denialdate)andevidenceof thebeneficiary'sacademiccredentials.Thepetitionerneitherclaimsnor
provesthatthepetitionerhadtimelysubmittedthesematerialsin supportoftheappealin 2009.
Thepetitionerassertsthatits "effortswill go to obtaina CertifiedLaborCertification."In thepresent
proceeding,thepetitionerhadsoughtanexemptionfrom the laborcertificationprocessundersection
203(b)(2)(A)of theAct. If thepetitionerwereto applyfor a laborcertificationatthis latedate,that
applicationwould haveno effecton the outcomeof the petitionthe petitionerfiled in 2008. The
priority dateof a petitionthat includesan approvedlaborcertificationis the datethat the petitioner
appliedfor the laborcertification.See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(d).Therefore,if thepetitionerwereto apply
for a laborcertificationin 2010or later,thatlaborcertification,evenif approved,couldnotbepartof a
petitionfiledin 2008.Rather,thepetitionerwouldhaveto file anewFormI-140petition,includingthe
approvedandcurrentlyvalidlaborcertification.
Becausethepetitionerdidnotshowthatthesummarydismissalwastheresultof anerrorof lawor fact,
theAAOwill dismissthemotion.
ORDER: Themotionisdismissed.