dismissed EB-3 Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 26360291 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 27, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Professional) 
The Petitioner, a software analysis, design , and development business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
as a computer systems analyst. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the 
third preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) , section 
203(b )(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant classification 
allows a U.S . employer to sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent 
resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that Beneficiary qualifies for the job offered based on the terms stated on the labor 
certification. The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. We concluded that the Petitioner did not 
specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision 
as a basis for the appeal, nor did it submit a brief to this office despite indicating on the Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion , that it would do so within 30 days of filing. Accordingly , we summarily 
dismissed the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 
375-76 (AAO 2010) . Upon review , we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
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) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 
103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen to instances where the filing party has shown "proper 
cause" for that action. Thus , to merit reopening , a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing 
requirements (such as submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion 
that does not meet applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The Petitioner maintains that it timely submitted a brief in support of its appeal filed on October 8, 
2021, and states that it is submitting evidence that warrants the reopening of its appeal. It provides a 
copy of its brief dated November 2, 2021 (along with supporting evidence), and a U.S. Postal Service 
(USPS) mailing receipt and tracking information showing delivery of a package to the U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) Vermont Service Center on November 4, 2021. The Petitioner 
contends that even if its brief "was submitted to the incorrect service center, the material should be 
forwarded to the proper center or returned to the appellant," noting that "[t]he service center did 
neither." 
The regulations require an affected party to submit the complete appeal including any supporting brief 
as indicated in the applicable form instructions within 30 days after service of the decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(i). The record reflects that the Petitioner properly filed its Form I-290B and filing fee 
at the location designated by the form instructions and indicated it would file a brief and/or evidence 
with the AAO within 30 days. 
The form instructions to the Form I-290B instruct appellants who elect to submit a supplemental brief 
within 30 days of filing an appeal to mail the brief or additional evidence directly to the AAO. The 
Petitioner claims that, rather than following these instructions, it mailed its brief to the Vermont 
Service Center. We note that the submitted USPS receipt does not include any identifying information 
that associates it with this matter. Further, although the Petitioner indicates that it mailed its brief to 
the Vermont Service Center, it sought to appeal the unfavorable decision of the Director of the Texas 
Service Center. The Petitioner has not explained why it would mail its brief to the Vermont Service 
Center when appealing a decision issued by the Texas Service Center. We cannot determine that the 
newly submitted mailing receipt constitutes evidence that the appellate brief was mailed to USCIS on 
the date indicated. 
Regardless, even if we concluded that the Petitioner attempted to file a brief in November 2021, the 
record on motion does not support a determination that the Petitioner properly filed a brief in support 
of its appeal, as it does not claim to have submitted the brief to this office. The Petitioner appears to 
view the improper filing of the brief as irrelevant and shift the burden for correcting any filing errors 
to USCIS. However, its claim that USCIS mishandled the brief is not persuasive. Again, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to submit the complete appeal as indicated in the applicable form instructions. 
The record before us at the time we summarily dismissed the Petitioner's initial appeal in November 
2022 did not contain a brief or other statement specifically identifying an erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact in the decision being appealed. While the new evidence submitted in support of 
this motion includes a copy of an appellate brief, the Petitioner has neither claimed nor presented 
evidence that the brief was properly submitted in accordance with the form instructions as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i). 
The scope of a motion is limited by regulation to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), which 
in this case was our summary dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. As the Petitioner has not shown 
proper cause for reopening the appeal, we will not address its claims that the Director denied the 
underlying petition in error. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established proper grounds for reopenmg. 
Accordingly, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2