dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Bz 
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. 3 1 1 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 
,$ Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Texas Service Center Director denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal.' The appeal 
will be rejected as untimely filed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 
103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on June 28, 2005. It is noted that the 
director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner 
filed a Notice of Appeal on August 18, 2005, 5 1 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 
motion is the official who made the last decision in the proceeding, in this case the service center 
director. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: . The appeal is rejected. 
' The petitioner indicated on the Notice of Appeal that he sought to appeal the director's decision to deny the Form 1-140 
petition and his decision to deny the petitioner's application for adjustment of status (Form 1-485). There is no right of 
appeal to the director's decision to deny an application for adjustment of status.