dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE 
MAR 302012 
Ollice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Adminislrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachu~eLLs Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(J)(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 Ollice in your case. Please note that all documents have 
been returned tll the ollice that originally decided your case. Please also note that any further inquiry must be 
made tll that office. 
Thank you, 
"'-/,7 (0->c. ~ __ 
~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.goY 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, initially approved the preference visa petition on 
January 11, 2010. Subsequently, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the 
petition (NOIR). [n a Notice of Revocation (NOR) dated November 1, 2011, the director ultimately 
revoked the approval of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form [-140). The petition is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely 
filed. 
[n order to properly file an appeal on a notice of revocation, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d) 
provides that the petitioner or the attorney or representative of record must file the complete appeal 
within 15 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be 
filed within 18 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the 
date of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on November 1, 2011. It is 
noted that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 18 days to file 
the appeal. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time 
limit. 
Although counsel dated the Form I-290B November 14, 2011, it was not received by the service 
center until Tuesday, November 22, 2011, or 21 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 [ate 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.