Others

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because it was not timely filed. The motion was received on June 4, 2024, 36 days after the appeal decision was issued on April 29, 2024, exceeding the 33-day deadline. Additionally, the Petitioner sent the motion to the USCIS Dallas Lockbox instead of the designated USCIS Phoenix Lockbox for decisions originating from the Texas Service Center, failing to comply with filing instructions.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the previous combined motion was untimely filed. The unfavorable decision was mailed on October 30, 2023, but the Form I-290B was received on December 14, 2023, which was 45 days after the decision, exceeding the required timeframe. USCIS regulations state that a benefit request is considered received on the actual date of receipt at the designated filing location, not the date of mailing.

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 Director denied the petition for not establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. The initial appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner did not identify specific legal or factual errors and failed to submit a brief/additional evidence within 30 days. The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner incorrectly mailed the appeal brief to a lockbox instead of directly to the AAO. The motion to reconsider was dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.