dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data delet.ed to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
JiUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .• MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: NAY 1 7 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. Please note that all documents 
have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please also note that any further 
inquiry must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
~~~'~~ 
forryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which 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. § l03.3(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 decision. If the decision 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). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on December 6, 2010. It 
is noted that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that he had 33 days 
to file the appeal. Although the notice of denial was correctly addressed to counsel, it was 
returned to the service center as undeliverable on December 28,2010, and subsequently reissued 
to counsel at the same address. On appeal, counsel states: "The Applicant and Attorney of 
record did not receive the denial decision until January 6,2011, at which point it was too late to 
appeal the decision in a timely matter. We urge the Service to accept the appeal as timely .... " 
In fact, USCIS issued the initial decision to the petitioner as well as the attorney of record. There 
is no evidence that the petitioner's decision was returned as undeliverable. In the present matter, 
the appeal was not received by the service center until January 13, 2011, or 38 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 
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 
Director of the Texas Service Center. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(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 untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.