dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 0 3 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washing ton, DC 20529- 2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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 )(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office . 
Thank you, 
~cr;ZJ/'---
{!-
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appe als Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
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.P.R. § 103.3(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.P.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.P.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on December 20, 2012. It is 
noted that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file 
the appeal. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time 
limit. See Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006). Even if the appeal was delayed by the 
overnight delivery service, the error would not warrant special consideration of the appeal. !d. 
Although the petitioner dated the Form I-290B January 16, 2013, it was not received by the service 
center until January 23, 2013, or 34 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was 
untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.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.