dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

, ,. . 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvac) 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
IN RE: 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: DEC 2 0 2010 
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 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 
infonnation 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 Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~~ 
}2..terry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The AAO 
then dismissed a motion to reopen and reconsider because it did not meet the requirements of a motion 
at the time it was filed. The matter is now before the AAO on a second motion to reopen or reconsider. 
The motion will be dismissed. 
The AAO dismissed the appeal on March 6, 2009. On April 7, 2009, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) received a Form I-290B and fee from the petitioner stating that the filing constituted 
his motion to reopen and reconsider. The petitioner asserted that he would send a brief and/or 
additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. 
On November 9, 2009, the AAO dismissed the motion on two grounds: first, that the motion did not 
meet the requirements of a motion when filed and second because no additional evidence was 
submitted. 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that within 14 days of filing the motion, he submitted additional 
evidence. As stated in our previous decision, however, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) 
allows for limited circumstances in which a petitioner can supplement an already-submitted appeal. 
This regulation, however, applies only to appeals, and not to motions to reopen or reconsider. There is 
no analogous regulation which allows a petitioner to submit new evidence in furtherance of a 
previously-filed motion. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit new evidence to address the AAO's 
grounds for dismissing the motion, such as a postal receipt. 
Even if we adjudicated the motion on its merits and, thus, considered the new materials that were 
purportedly submitted within 14 days of the previous motion, they all relate to accomplishments that 
postdate the filing of the petition. The petitioner must establish his eligibility as of the date of filing. 
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971); see 
also Matter (?f Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 
18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that we cannot "consider facts that come into being 
only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") Thus, the new evidence is not persuasive. 
According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), 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 oflaw or Service policy. 
The petitioner has not filed a proper motion to reopen or reconsider. His request was not accompanied 
by any new facts or evidence relating to the grounds for dismissing the previous motion or arguments 
based on precedent decisions. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.