Hydrologist

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not provide new facts pertaining to the untimeliness of the prior motion. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, nor did she dispute the correctness of the decision to dismiss her motion on the basis of its untimely filing. The Petitioner's explanation for the delay, 'it was difficult for me to finish printing everything just in time,' was not deemed reasonable or beyond her control.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed as untimely because it was received after the 33-day deadline and regulations permit no extensions. The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner's excuse for the delay—workload and difficulty printing documents—did not establish that the delay was beyond her control. The underlying EB-1A petition remains denied as the Petitioner did not satisfy the minimum of three evidentiary criteria.

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 motion was dismissed because it did not provide new facts or evidence to overcome the most recent adverse decision (the fifth motion). Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a), a motion must address the latest decision in the procedural history to warrant reopening.