dismissed
EB-1A
dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown
Decision Summary
The appeal was dismissed because it was rejected as untimely filed. The director's decision was issued on August 26, 2008, but the appeal was not received until August 17, 2009, over 11 months after the 33-day filing deadline. The AAO found that the untimely appeal did not meet the requirements to be treated as a motion to reopen or reconsider.
Criteria Discussed
Timely Filing Of Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
US. Department of Homeland Security U S Cltrzensh~p and Imm~grat~on Services Office of Admrnrstratrve Appeals, MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services PrnLIC COPY SRC 07 230 51167 OCT 0 2 20::t. 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. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A) IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED INSTRUCTIONS: This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Ofice 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. F. Grissom Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 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. 5 103.3(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. 5 103.5a(b). The date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103,2(a)(7)(i). The record indicates that the director issued the decision on August 26, 2008. It is noted that the director properly gave notice to the petitioner that she had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner dated the appeal August 12, 2009 and it was received by the director on August 17, 2009, more than 11 months after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 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. 5 103.3(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. 5 103.5(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. 5 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4). Here, the untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.