dismissed EB-1A Case: Not Specified

U.S. Depa~ment of Boaaseland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3342 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ^'-- 
?("if==- 
\ ! ". " 
ll9,2 
5 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FETEION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Exhaordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the ]Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 I B53(b)(l)(A) 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Tlis is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. An1 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
" !"\\I 
L &.J-LLp~4-hi.w~~~ 
'7- 
L 
&" Robert P. %%Tiemanam, Director 
Adninistrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based i grant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Ad~nis&ati.ire Appeals OEce (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as 
untimely filed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an emp1oyment-based i grant pursuant to section 203(b)(k)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The director determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
h order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 H03.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of after service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 5 183.5a(b). 8 C.F.R. 5 I.B(h) explains that 
when the last day of a perid falls on a Saturdayay, Sunday, or legal holidayay, the perid shall run until the end of the 
next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday9 or legal holiday. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on January 14, 2004. The appeal was received by 
Citizenship and Immigration Sewices on Febmary 19, 26304, or 36 days after the decision was issued. 
Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a. 
motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be 
made on the merits of the case. The official having jurisdiction over a aazotion is the official who made the 
last decision in the proceeding, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 5 B03.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director declined to treat the Bate appeal as a motion and forwarded the matter to the MO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.