dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: OCT 0 3 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
\ 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
W~hjngton, DC 20529-2090 
. U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Exttaordimrry 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: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
En~losed pl~e 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 este~blish agency policy 
~brough non-precedent decisions. 
. Tb<:mk you, 
·~ 
{J Ron Rosenberg · 
\( Chi~f, Ach'riinjstr.ative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSiON: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was deniect by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The matter is now before the Administr~tive Appe~ls Office (AAO) on 
appeal. the appeal will be rejected. 
In order to properly file ® appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the 
affected party or the attorney or represeAt~tive of re·cord must submit the complete appeal within 30 
days of serV'ice·.of the unfavorable decision. If the clecision was mailed, the appeal must be filed 
within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). The: dateof flUng is 110t the date ofsubmission, but the 
date· of actual receipt with the required fee, See 8 C.F,R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). An appe~J th::;.t is not filed 
withinthe time allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B){l). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on February 7, 2013. It is 
noted that the serVice center director properly g~ve noti9e to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file 
the appeal. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time 
limit. · 
Although the petitioner signed and dated the Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on M.arch 6, 
2013, it w~ not received by USCIS until March 13, 2013, 34 days after the decision was issued. 
Accordingly, the a:ppeaJ wa,s uritirriely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(Y)(B)(2) st~tes th~t, if an untimely appeal meets the 
requirem{mts ofa: motion to reopen or 
a motion to reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a motion, 
ancl ~ decision must be inade on the merits of the caSe. The official having jurisdiction over a 
·motion is 
the official who rriade the ~ast decision in the proceeding, iri this case the Director of the 
Nebraska 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. · 
. ·. . . . 
A~ U\e ~ppeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitio11er's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 oft.he Act, 
8 US. C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N bee. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.