dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Professions

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvac} 
PUBUCcOPy 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: Dt::C 0 2 Z010 
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. § I I 53(b )(2) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
The fee for a Form I-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on November 23, 20 I O. Any appeal or 
motion filed on or after November 23, 2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~~0V 
~errYRheY 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before the 
AAO on motion. The motion will be dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5(a)(i) provides, in pertinent part: 
Any motion to reconsider an action by the Service filed by an applicant or petitioner 
must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider. Any 
motion to reopen a proceeding before the Service filed by an applicant or petitioner, 
must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen, except that 
failure to file before this period expires, may be excused in the discretion of the Service 
where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the control of the 
applicant or petitioner. 
If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 c.F.R. § 103.5a(b). 
Service records reveal that the AAO's notice was mailed to the petitioner at his address of record and to 
counsel at his address of record. The petitioner has not demonstrated that he or counsel advised the 
AAO of any change of address. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(E), relating to the filing 
requirements for motions, provides that a motion must be "[ s lubmitted to the office maintaining the 
record upon which the unfavorable decisions was made for forwarding to the official having 
jurisdiction." (Emphasis added.) 
The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal on March 11,2009. The petitioner dated the motion August 
10,2009. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received the motion on August 12, 2009, 
approximately five months later. 
In light of the above, the motion is untimely. The petitioner asserts that on March 24, 2009 and on June 
20, 2009, he requested an extension of time to file a motion from the director and the AAO because of 
unarticulated reasons beyond his control. The petitioner further indicates that the director advised of the 
requirement for filing a motion to receive further consideration. The petitioner did not submit the 
director's response and it is not in the record of proceeding. The motion is under the jurisdiction of the 
AAO, not the director. While the petitioner indicated he was filing a joint motion to reopen and 
reconsider, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the failure to file a timely motion was reasonable 
and beyond the petitioner's control. 
As the motion was untimely filed, the motion must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.