Vocational Agricultural Teacher

The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner reargued eligibility claims already considered in previous decisions without providing new facts or legal errors. The Petitioner's reference to new employment as a research scientist did not establish that the prior motion dismissal was erroneous.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed as untimely filed. The Petitioner attempted to file motions on November 4, 2024, which was 38 days after the latest adverse decision on September 27, 2024, exceeding the 33-day limit. The delay was attributed to the Petitioner improperly completing Form I-290B by selecting both an appeal and a motion. The Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable and beyond their control for the motion to reopen, and no authority exists to extend the time limit for a motion to reconsider. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish new facts or show legal/policy error in the prior decision.

The AAO dismissed the motions because the Petitioner failed to provide evidence of intent to work as a postsecondary teacher at the time of filing, such as letters from prospective employers, prearranged commitments, or a detailed statement of plans. Evidence submitted largely related to events after the January 2013 filing date, which is not considered. The Petitioner's SJD degree and part-time research assistant experience were deemed insufficient to establish intent or experience as a postsecondary teacher. Prior petitions claiming intent to work as a self-employed lawyer were also noted.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Although the Petitioner provided a copy of a supplemental brief, it was incorrectly mailed to Arizona instead of the AAO, and the Petitioner offered no new facts to overcome the grounds for the original dismissal.