dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 2 9 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Hom1:land Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (A/\0) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTR UCfiONS: 
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 thai originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please .be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requi;es any motion to be filed wit hi~ 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~~~ 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
' J 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employme!lt-based immigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the director dismissed. The matter is now 
before th.e Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on October 3, 2011, seeking classification undersection 
203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a special education 
teacher for The petitioner asserts that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest 
of the United States. The director denied the petition on July 5, 2012, having found that the petitioner 
qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the 
petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement Qf a job offer would be in the 
national interest of the United States. The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the decision on August 
6, 2012, which the director dismissed on September 17, 2012, stating that it did not meet the 
requirements of such a motion. The petitioner has appealed the dismissal of the motion. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically ~my erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
The petitioner, on appeal, disputes elements of the director's July 2012 denial decision. The matter on 
appeal, however, is not the July 2012 denial of the petition, but the September 2012 dismissal of the 
motion to reconsider. The petitioner must overcome the September 2012 dismissal of the motion before 
the AAO will revisit the merits of any earlier decision. The present filing is not a timely appeal of the 
original denial decision, and the AAO will not. treat it as though it were . . 
Counsel, on appeal, acknowledges the dismissal of the motion to reconsider, but makes no evident 
attempt to rebut or overcome it. Counsel, instead, essentially appeals the denial as though the motion 
and its dismissal never happened. Therefore, counsel has not shown that the AAO should withdraw the 
director's dismissal of the motion in order to clear the way for review of the underlying denial. . 
Because counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
in the director's last decision, counsel has specifiep no acceptable basis for the appeal and the AAO 
must summarily dismiss the appeal. -
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.