dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

We: m Office: 
EAC 02 207 53979 
U.S. Department of Hilomelaand Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., h. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
VERMONT SERVlCE CENTER Date: 
Petition?: l[mmigrawt Petition for A,Pien Worker as an AABn of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.61. B B53(b)(l)(A) 
IN BEHALF OH; PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. Ail documents have been returned to 
the ofice that originally decided yow case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
- - , Robert P. W'iemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimnmigant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be rgected as untanmzely 
filed, 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected paw 
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. tj 103.5agb). 
The record mdicates that the director issued the decision on May 23, 2003. The dec~sion was makd to the 
petitioner at his address of record provided on the Fom 1-140 petition. In th~s decisnon, the director properly 
gave notice to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file the appeal. Counsel dated the appeal March 30, 2004 
and it was received by C~tizenship and Immigration Sewices on April 5, 2004, or more than 90 months after 
the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the "Immigration Office9' that prepared the pet~tioner's petition ~losed down 
its rna~lbox, which the petitaoner had used for his residential address on the Form 1-140. Counsel fi~rLher 
states that the indivdual running the office left the area. Accordsng to counsel, the petitioner acqu~red the 
director's decision ""recently" when someone forwarded if to him. 
The Fom 1-440 petikon, Part 9, reqrarres the s~gnatLire of the person pre7armg the fom if other than the 
pet~kioner. The pet~tnoner's Form 1-140 is blank at Part 9. The record does not contatn a Form 6-28 Not~ce of 
Appearance from any representatave prior to counsel's 6-28 subm~tted on appeal. As stated above, the 
declsion was maded to the street address prov~derk on the petitson. 
Regardless, whiie the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(B)(i) provides that a late motion may be excused in the 
discretion of the Service where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the control of the 
applicant or petitioner, there is no similar provision relating to appeals. Thus, we cannot consider the petitioner's 
explanatio~ for the untimely filing of the appeal. The regulation at 8 C.F.W. tj 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(a 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 mde 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. 9 103.5(a)(I)(ii). The director dec!hed to treat the late appeal as a motion md 
fowa~ded the matter to the UO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.