dismissed EB-1A Case: Not Specified

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear~y unwarranted 
invasion of personal pvacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securily 
U.S. Citizenship and llnmigration Scrvices 
Olffic<, o/ddr,rini.$lrirrive .A/,/,eol.~ MS 2090 
Washineton. I)(' 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 09 194 52575 SEP 1 3 2010 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § I I53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision. or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1.2908. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
'*hief. Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on November 4,2009. and is now before the Administrative Appeals Oftice (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the lmmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the beneficiary's requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 1$ 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the 
affected party must file the complete appeal within 30 days after service of the unfavorable 
decision. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 
1$ 103.5a(b). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ l.l(h) explains that when the last day of a period falls on 
a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period shall run until the end of the next day that is not a 
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. The date of filing is not the date of mailing. but the date of 
actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the Director, Texas Service Center, issued the decision on November 4, 
2009. It is noted that the director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file 
the appeal. The director received the appeal on December 8. 2009, 34 days after the decision 
was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time 
limit for filing an appeal. As the appeal was untimely filed it must be rejected. 
It is noted that even if we were to accept the petitioner's appeal as timely filed, it would be 
summarily dismissed. On appeal, counsel states that "[tlhe decision has been made based in [sic] an 
erroneous conclusion of the law andlor fact in the decision being appealed and a brief would be 
submitted within 30 days to the AAO. As of this date, approximately nine months later. the AAO 
has received nothing further. Accordingly, the record is considered complete as it now stands. 
As stated under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed 
if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. The petitioner here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial 
and has not provided any additional evidence. As the petitioner failed to provide any statement or 
argument regarding the basis of the appeal, it would have otherwise been summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.