Construction Manager And Civil Engineer

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner neither addressed the basis for which the prior combined motion was dismissed (untimeliness) nor supported the instant motion with new documentary evidence. 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 or was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not assert any new facts or provide new documentary evidence, instead resubmitting previously provided documents. 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, specifically failing to provide corroborating evidence for timely delivery and misinterpreting the 'mailbox rule' which does not apply to USCIS proceedings governed by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i) requiring actual receipt.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the regulatory requirements. For the motion to reopen, no new facts supported by documentary evidence were presented that were material to the issues raised on motion and not previously submitted. For the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of that decision.

The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider because the petitioner did not argue that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, nor did they cite relevant legal provisions. The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner submitted only duplicate copies of previously submitted documents, which do not constitute new facts or evidence as required.