dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacj 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 04 021 52713 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 021 52713 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The service center director denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition and the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is again before the AAO on motion to 
reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an information technology and solutions company, and seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
computer software engineer. It endeavors to classify him as a nonirnmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition on the ground that the proffered position is not a 
specialty occupation. The AAO dismissed a subsequent appeal (appeal filed September 7, 2004) pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) for failure of the petitioner to specify on appeal how the director made any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in denying the petition, and failure to present any additional 
evidence to overcome the decision of the director. 
Subsequent to the petitioner's filing of the notice of appeal on September 7, 2004, the petitioner obtained 
counsel for representation in the appeal process. Counsel then filed a second notice of appeal on September 
20, 2004. That appeal was properly rejected by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and returned to 
counsel with the filing fee as an appeal was presently pending. The AAO issued a decision on March 18, 
2005 summarily dismissing the petitioner's appeal for the reasons stated above. On October 27, 2005, the 
petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the decision of the AAO. 
An affected party has 30 days from the date of an adverse decision to file a motion to reopen or reconsider a 
proceeding before Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). 
 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). If the adverse 
decision was served by mail, an additional three days is added to the proscribed period. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5a(b). 
Any motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 (a)(4). 
The petitioner's motion does not meet applicable requirements because it was not timely filed. 
 The 
Administrative Appeals Office mailed its decision to the petitioner on March 18, 2005. The petitioner filed a 
motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO decision on October 27, 2005 (223 days after the AAO decision). The 
AAO may, in its discretion, excuse the late filing of a motion when it is demonstrated that the delay was 
reasonable and was beyond the control of the applicant or petitioner. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). In this instance, 
the late filing of the motion to reconsider (223 days subsequent to the adverse decision of the AAO) was not 
reasonable, nor does the record establish that the late filing was beyond the control of the petitioner. 
Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. 
As always, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.