General And Operations Manager

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 and reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide new facts or documentary evidence relevant to the AAO's lack of jurisdiction over the motions, nor did they question the factual or legal correctness of the prior decision to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. The motion did not satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) for new facts or 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) for incorrect application of law or policy.

The AAO dismissed the motions because the petitioner failed to follow instructions for filing the appeal brief, sending it to the USCIS Phoenix Lockbox instead of directly to the AAO. This procedural error led to the summary dismissal of the initial appeal. The motions to reopen and reconsider did not present new facts or establish an incorrect application of law or policy by the AAO in its original summary dismissal.

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.