dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., Ms 2090
washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 0 2 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVlCECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
DegreeoranAlienof ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition. The AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) dismissedthe petitioner'sappealfrom that
decision.Thepetitionerthenfileda motionto reconsider,whichtheAAO dismissedasuntimely. The
petitionerhasnow filed a secondmotionto reconsider.The AAO will, again,dismissthemotionas
untimely.
Any motionto reconsideranactionby the Servicefiled by anapplicantor petitionermustbe filed
within 30 days of the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsider.Any motion to reopena
proceedingbeforethe Servicefiled by anapplicantor petitioner,mustbefiled within 30daysof the
decisionthatthemotionseeksto reopen,exceptthatfailureto file beforethisperiodexpires,maybe
excusedin thediscretionof the Servicewhereit is demonstratedthatthe delaywasreasonableand
wasbeyondthecontrolof theapplicantor petitioner.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i).
A motionto reconsidermuststatethereasonsfor reconsiderationandbesupportedby anypertinent
precedentdecisionsto establishthat the decisionwasbasedon an incorrectapplicationof law or
Servicepolicy.A motionto reconsideradecisiononanapplicationor petitionmust,whenfiled, also
establishthat the decisionwasincorrectbasedon the evidenceof recordat the time of the initial
decision. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3). A motionthat doesnot meetapplicablerequirementsshall be
dismissed.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4).
Thelatestmotionincludesa letterfrom attorney Themotiondoesnot,however,
includea newly executedFormG-28Noticeof Entryof AppearanceasAttorneyor Representative
identifying as the petitioner'sattorneyof record. Furthermore,Moes not
specificallyclaim to be the petitioner'sattorney. Rather,he statesthat the petitioner"askedour
office to facilitatemailingthis 1-290Bon his behalf." The AAO will considerthepetitionerto be
self-representedfor thepurposesof thisproceeding.
Any motionto reconsideranactionby USCISfiledby anapplicantor petitionermustbefiledwithin
30daysof thedecisionthatthe motionseeksto reconsider.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i).Whenevera
personhasthe right or is required to do someact within a prescribedperiod after the serviceof a
notice upon him andthe notice is servedby mail, 3 days shall be addedto the prescribedperiod.
Serviceby mail is completeupon mailing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). Thedateof filing is not the dateof
mailing, but the dateof actual receipt. USCIS will not considera submissionto be properly filed
unlessit includestheproperfee. See8 C.F.R.§§103.2(a)(1)and(7)(i).
TheAAO dismissedthepetitioner'spreviousmotionon December13,2011. TheAAO advisedthe
petitionerthat,if hedesiredto file anewmotion,"[a]ll motionsmustbesubmittedto theofficethat
originallydecided[the] case"- in this instance,theTexasServiceCenter.
OnJanuary12,2012,theAAO receivedthepetitioner'slatestmotion. TheAAO returnedthe filing
becausethe AAO doesnot acceptdirect filing of appealsor motions. The TexasServiceCenter
receivedthemotionon January25, 2012,43daysaftertheAAO issuedits prior decision.Attorney
stated:
Page3
Ourclerkdid not realizetheapplicationwasto goto the"TexasServiceCenter,AAO
Office," asthereturnaddressonthedenialwasfromtheWashingtonOffice,whichin
generalisthecorrectoffice to submitappeals.. . .
We askthatyou acceptthe stampedFormI-290B asbeingtimely filed asthis error
wasthroughno fault of the petitioner.
TheAAO's addressin Washington,DC is not "in generalthecorrectoffice to submitappeals."The
instructionsto FormI-290B,Noticeof Appeal,specificallystatethatappealsandmotionsarenot to
be filed directly with the AAO. Furthermore,while the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2)states
that late filing "may be excusedin the discretionof the Servicewhereit is demonstratedthat the
delaywasreasonableandwasbeyondthecontrolof the applicantor petitioner,"thatclauseapplies
onlyto motionsto reopen,notto motionsto reconsider.Furthermore,misfiling of themotion,when
theAAO statedthatthemotionwasto befiled with "theoffice thatoriginallydecided[the] case,"is
notbeyondthecontrolof thepetitioner.
The petitionerdid not properlyfile the motion in a timely marmer,andthereforethe AAO must
dismissthemotionundertheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4).
Evenif themotionweretimely filed, theAAO woulddismissthemotionto reconsiderasdeficient.
Themotionis basedon the assertionthattheAAO erredin its prior dismissalof the first motionto
reconsider.In thatearlierdecision,theAAO stated:
On December17, 2010,USCISreceivedthe petitioner'smotionwith a $650filing
fee. Becausethepetitionerdid not submitthe correctfee[of $630],USCISrejected
themotion. Thepetitionerlaterresubmittedthemotionwith a$630feeonJanuary3,
2011, 47 days after the date of the AAO's dismissalnotice. Accordingly, the
petitionerdidnot properlyfile atimelymotion.
The petitioner asserts:"USCIS andthe governmentreceivedits fee. . . . The Governmenthas not
beendeprivedof its filing, suchas[wouldbe] thecasewherethecheckwasreturnedunhonoredby
thebank,or no filing fee,or too little filing feewassubmitted." Thepetitionerclaims:"TheNinth
Circuit hasrecognizedthat the overpaymentof a filing feeshouldnot result in the rejectionsof a
noticeof appeal.Lopez-Vegav. Keisler,257Fed.Apx. 47(9'" Cir. 2007)(unpublished)."
A notationin the decisionstates:"This dispositionis not appropriatefor publicationand is not
precedentexceptas providedby 9th Cir. R. 36-3." Id. at 48. Therefore,the decisionis not a
controlling authority in the presentproceeding. Even then, the decisiondoesnot say, as the
petitionerclaims,that "overpaymentof a filing feeshouldnot resultin therejectionsof a noticeof
appeal."Rather,thedecisionstatesthatthegovernmentmustjustify sucharejection:
Page4
With regardsto thefee,thelanguageof therejectionnoticesuggeststhatLopez-Vega
paid morethanthe amountdue. We fail to understandhow anoverpaymentwould
result in the rejectionof a noticeof appeal;noneof the authoritiescited by the
government,includingtheadministrativeregulations,directssucharesult.
Wethereforegrantthepetitionfor review,andremandto theBIA. Uponremand,the
BIA shalleither:(1) clarify with specificitythe filing defectsandtheauthorityunder
which suchdefectswouldjustify therejectionof the first noticeof appealandrender
the secondnoticeof appealuntimely;or (2) deemthe noticeof appealtimely filed
andconductfurtherproceedingsaccordingly.
Id. at49. An explanationof thefiling defect,andtheauthorityfor rejectingtheappealbasedonthat
defect,would satisfythe aboveinstructions. The USCISregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(a)(7)(i)
states:"A benefitrequestwhich is not . . . submittedwith the correctfee(s)will berejected." The
regulationplainlyrequiresnot thatthe feebe"sufficient," whichwouldreferonlyto underpayment.
Rather,the feemustbe"correct,"neitherunderpaidnor overpaid.Thepetitioner,therefore,hasnot
shownthattheAAO erredin dismissingtheprior motionto reconsider.
A motion that doesnot meetapplicablerequirementsshall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4).
The motion was untimely filed; doesnot establishthat the decisionwas basedon an incorrect
applicationof law or USCISpolicy; anddoesnot establishthatthedecisionwasincorrectbasedon
the evidenceof recordat the time of the initial decision. Therefore,the AAO must dismissthe
motion.
ORDER: Themotionisdismissed.