Degree ?ran Alien ~f Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and NationalityAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documeflls related to.this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. Thank you,
A4Y
Ron Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals-Office www.uscis.gov
.;; . .
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based preference visa . petition on December 3, 2008. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) ·on January 5, 2009. The AAO dismissed the appeal on February 23, 2012. The petitioner filed a subsequent appeal with the AAO on March 27, 2012. The petitioner's March 27, -2012 appeal will be rejected.
The petitioner is a software consulting business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a software engineer pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Ad (the Act), 8 U.S.C § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, an alien employment certification, which the Department of Labor (DOL) approved, accompanied the petition.
In his December 3, 2008 decision, the director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish its ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered salary froin the priority date onwards. The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal on February 23, 2012. The cover page of the AAO's decision instructed the petitioner that it may file either a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider the decision pursuant to the requirements .found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5, and that any motion must be filed with the office that originally decided the case within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i).
The petitioner subsequently attempted to file another appeal on the petitioner's behalf on March 27, 2012. The AAO, however, does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over its own decisions. The AAO only exercises appellate jurisdiction over matters that were specifically 'listed at 8 C.F.R. § l03.1(t)(3)(iii) (as _in effect on February 28, 2003). For instance, in the event that a petitioner disagrees with an AAO decision, the petitioner can file a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. In this matter, the petitioner did not check ·box D ("I am tiling a motion to reopen a decision"), box E ("I am filing a motion to reconsider a decision"), or bm('F ("I am filing a motion t.o reopen and a motion to reconsider a decision") on the Form 1-2908,. Notice of Appeal or Moiion. The petitioner checked box B ("I am filing an appeal. My brief and/or additional evid~nce will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days"), instead. Therefore, the appeal is improperly filed and must be rejected on this basis pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(J). Therefore, as the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(J). ORDER: The appeal is rejected. The AAO's previous decision dated February 23, 2012 shall not be disturbed. The petition remains.denied.