dismissed EB-1A

dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

📅 Date unknown 👤 Individual 📂 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

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. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.