dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of flomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W.. Rm. 3000 
ideTtifjri~s d.Aa C".?!?d to 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
* - 
urz-ye~l: cle5.p : n. 3:: 3:ed 
incs;iDfl 9' jjans:dl ?+riv?.cy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 07 800 25634 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 0 2 2009 
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. 5 11 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. 
v 
+In F. Grissorn, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
t 
SRC 07 800 25634 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (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 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. $ 103.5a(b). The date of filing is not the date of 
mailing, but the date of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on December 20, 2007. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal 
January 16, 2008, it was postmarked January 17, 2008 and received by the director on Wednesday, January 
23, 2008, 34 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. The director 
erroneously annotated the appeal as timely and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit for 
filing an appeal. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the 
reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on 
an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the untimely appeal did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider on 
the date it was filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 includes no provisions for supplementing a motion. 
Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). 
As the appeal was untimely filed and does not qualify as a motion, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.