dismissed EB-1A Case: Not Specified

'identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Bencliciary: 
U.S. ()epartment of lIomeland Sccurit) 
lJ.S. Citin'nsbip and Immigration Sen'icc'> 
Administrative Appeals Office (Ai\O) 
20 Massachusetts Ihe .. N.\V .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 2052Y-20l)O 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 3 1 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: 8 U.s.c. § I I 53(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 specitic 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 1-290B. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. with a fee of$585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1 lei) requires that any motion must 
be tiled within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
{j (J1.j,!/I/li." 
t' Perry Rhew 
r Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
......... ~ 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Ot1ice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
rejected as untimely filed. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the 
atfected party must file the complete appeal with the office where the unfavorable decision was 
made 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. § 103.5a(b). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1.1 (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.r-.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) provides that 
an appeal which is not tiled with the time allowed must be rejected as improperly tiled. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on December 29, 2008. It is noted that 
the director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although 
the petitioner dated the appeal on January 9, 2009, it was received by the director on Tuesday. 
February 3, 2009, 36 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely 
tiled. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time 
limit for filing an appeal. See Matter ofLiadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BlA 2006). Even if the appeal 
was delayed by the overnight delivery service, the error would not warrant special consideration 
of the appeal. /d. 
Therefore, the appeal must be rejected as untimely tiled pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l).1 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
I We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(v), provides that 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. On 
appeal. the petitioner did not specifically address the reasons stated for denial and did not provide any additional 
evidence. Therefore, the appeal would have been summarily dismissed in the alternative.