Others

The motion to reopen was dismissed because it was untimely filed and sent to the wrong location. The Petitioner's first motion was filed 54 days after the appeal dismissal, exceeding the 30-day (or 33-day for mailed) regulatory period. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable or beyond their control, and did not provide new evidence or facts to overcome the grounds for dismissal.

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 Director denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to establish that a waiver of the job offer and labor certification would be in the national interest. The AAO dismissed the appeal and subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider because the Petitioner did not include a statement identifying erroneous conclusions with Form I-290B and mailed the appeal brief to the USCIS Phoenix Lockbox instead of directly to the AAO, causing a delay in its incorporation into the record.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because it was untimely filed. The previous decision was mailed on September 22, 2023, and the petitioner's Form I-290B was received on November 14, 2023, which was 53 days after the decision. USCIS regulations state that a benefit request is considered received on the actual date of receipt at the designated filing location, not the mailing date. The petitioner failed to provide legal authority to support the application of the "mailbox rule" for this type of filing.