Entrepreneur

The appeal and subsequent motions were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to properly and timely submit the appeal brief directly to the AAO as required by the Form I-290B instructions. The Petitioner's arguments regarding ambiguous instructions or incorrect web addresses for the AAO were found unpersuasive, as the instructions clearly stated where to find the address and how to submit the brief.

The petitioner seeks to work as an entrepreneur in the United States. Specific details regarding the research area, methodologies, or intended impact of the endeavor were not discussed in the decision as it focused on procedural signature validity.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the initial appeal filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) and Form I-290B instructions. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to send the follow-on brief directly to the AAO, instead mailing it to a lockbox address, which violated the Form I-290B instructions. The Petitioner did not establish eligibility as of the filing date or demonstrate that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

The AAO dismissed the motions to reopen and reconsider because the Petitioner misfiled the appeal brief to an incorrect address, leading to the summary dismissal of the initial appeal. The new evidence (FedEx label) confirmed the misfiling, thus not demonstrating an error in the AAO's prior decision to summarily dismiss the appeal due to the absence of a brief.