Lawyer

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider was filed on June 13, 2023, which was beyond the 30-day regulatory deadline from the petition denial date of December 8, 2022. The petitioner did not provide an explanation for the delay or establish that the delay was reasonable, thus failing to meet the requirements for excusing an untimely filing.

The Administrative Appeals Office dismissed the combined motions to reopen and reconsider because they were untimely. The motion to reconsider was filed 42 days after the prior dismissal, exceeding the 33-day deadline, and there is no regulatory provision to excuse a late motion to reconsider. The motion to reopen was also dismissed as the petitioner's error in completing Form I-290B, which caused a filing rejection, was not demonstrated to be reasonable or beyond their control.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the previous motion was untimely filed, as USCIS regulations require actual receipt within 33 days, not mailing date. The Petitioner failed to provide evidence of timely receipt or a reasonable explanation for the delay. The motion to reconsider also failed to assert an incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decision.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because it was untimely filed. The third motion was received by USCIS on August 28, 2024, which was 43 days after the prior decision dated July 16, 2024, exceeding the 33-day deadline for filing. The petitioner's claim that an initial mailing was rejected by USCIS was not supported by sufficient explanation or evidence to establish that the delay was reasonable and beyond their control, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i).