dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

.. . 
ic!entifvlng data deleted to 
l)~;<evr~"'l' C)·li.'n~'i""'lq';;7',)<·ranted 1 <.-b "' •• ''''- .. ' ),,$_ ...... ,.-#_ .B.fy t;..j},l._ ~ if C;£.A 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
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 
DATE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
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 1-290B, 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, 
PertyRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
• • I .. 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will 
be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(1)(i) and 103.5(a)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) states in pertinent part that: 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) states that a motion must be filed within 30 days of 
the decision that the motion seeks to reopen or reconsider. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5a(b) states that whenever a person is required to act within a prescribed period after the 
service of a notice upon him and the notice is served by mail, three days shall be added to the 
prescribed period. The date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of actual receipt. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). The AAO issued the decision dismissing the petitioner's appeal on 
June 14, 2011. The record indicates that the petitioner filed the instant motion on July 19, 2011, 
35 days after the decision of the AAO. 
As it relates to motions to reopen, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) provides 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." In this matter, the petitioner's motion was not properly filed within the required thirty 
days and he has not demonstrated that this delay was reasonable and beyond his control. The 
motion must therefore be dismissed as untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) states that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will 
not be reopened and reconsidered, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not 
be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed, the AAO's June 14, 2011 decision IS 
affirmed, and the petition remains denied.