dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DAtE: OCT 0 3 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
.INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Adfllinistra~ive Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachlisetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. _Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability PQrsu~nt to Section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Inunigtation an_d Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § U 53(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision. of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non-:­
precedent decision. The AAO ·does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy 
through non-precedent decisions. 
Thank you, 
/JJJ(JJ.dr.rlv r Ron Rosenberg 
V Chief, Administrative Appe~ls Office 
Www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant vise!, petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center. The matter is now b~fore the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be rejected. · 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i),provides that the 
, affected party or the attorney or representative of record must submit the complete appeal within 30 
days of service of the unfavorable dec:ision., If the d~ci'sion was mailed, the appeal must be filed 
within 33 days. See 8 'c.F.R. § 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of submission, but the 
date of actual receipt with the required fee. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). An appeal that is not filed 
within the time aJlowed mu~f be rejected as improperly filed .. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3('!,)(2)(v)(B)(J). 
The record indicates that the service center director initially denied the petition on Febru'!,ry 20, 
2013. The service ce11t~r dir~ctor a.pproved the petitioner's motion to reopen but subsequently 
denied the petition, on April16, 2013. It is noted the!,t the service center director properly gave notice 
to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file the appeal. Neither tbe Ac:t nor the pertinent regulations 
grarit the AAO authority to extend this time limit. · 
l 
Although counsel signed and dated the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal ot Motion, on May 10; 2013, 
it was not, receiv~d by USCIS u.ntil May 21, 2013, 35 days after the decision was issued. 
Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed . 
. The regulation at 8 C.F;R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the 
requ.irements of a motion to reopen or a rnotion_to reconsider~ the appeai must be tre'!,ted. c;ts 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 rnade the last decision in the proceeding, in this case the Director of the 
Texas Service Center. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director determined that the late appeal 
did not meet the requirements of a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. · 
As the appeal was urttimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section291 ofthe Act, 
· 8 V.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that btirdenhas not 
been met. " 
ORDER:. The appeal is rejected.