dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Traffic Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: OCT 2 1 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non­
precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy 
through non-precedent decisions. 
Thank you, 
~Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner appealed that decision, and the AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The 
matter is now before the AAO again on appeal. The AAO will reject the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the File 1-140 petition on December 23, 2011, seeking classification under section 
203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of 
exceptional ability in the sciences. The petitioner seeks employment as a traffic engineer for the City of 
Arlington, Texas. 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. In denying the petition on 
December 5, 2012, the director 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 of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. The petitioner 
appealed the decision on January 7, 2013. 
The AAO dismissed the appeal on April 8, 2013. The cover sheet on the appellate decision indicated 
that the petitioner could file a motion to reopen and/or reconsider the decision, but did not indicate that 
the petitioner had any appeal rights. 
The petitioner filed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on May 7, 2013. Asked to specify (by 
checking a box) whether the filing was an appeal or a motion, counsel indicated that the filing was an 
appeal. Elsewhere on Form I-290B and in an accompanying statement, counsel refers to the filing only 
as an appeal. 
The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over its own decisions. The AAO exercises appellate 
jurisdiction over only the matters described in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28, 2003) . See DHS Delegation 
Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003). An appeal of an AAO appeal is not properly within the 
AAO's jurisdiction . 
There is no provision for a petitioner to appeal the dismissal of an appeal. The AAO must therefore 
reject the appeal. 
In the alternative, if the petitioner had intended the latest filing as a motion, the AAO would dismiss the 
motion. A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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 USCIS 
policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also 
establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
In the latest filing, counsel states no new facts and the petitioner submits no new evidence. Numerous 
exhibits accompany the filing, but the documents are all copies of previously submitted materials. 
Therefore, the latest filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
The brief accompanying the latest filing does not establish that the AAO's decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, and it does not establish that the AAO's decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Instead, the brief 
repeats, word for word, the first eight pages of the brief that had accompanied the petitioner's first 
appeal in January 2013. The AAO fully addressed that brief, and the accompanying evidence, in its 
first appellate decision. 
A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit the same brief presented on 
appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision. Instead, the 
moving party must specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or 
overlooked in the initial decision or must show how a change in law materially affects the prior 
decision. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 219 (BIA 1990, 1991). The petitioner has not 
done so. Instead, the petitioner has submitted part of the same brief and copies of the same 
evidence, with no explanation as to why the AAO's previous decision was incorrect. Therefore, the 
petitioner's submission would not qualify as a motion to reconsider under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires the dismissal of a motion that does 
not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
There is no provision to allow the petitioner to appeal the dismissal of an earlier appeal. The AAO 
will reject the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.