dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PlJBLlC COPY 
DATE 
JUL 1 62012 
IN RE: 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 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1)(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 Office in your case. Please note that all documents have 
been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please also note that any further inquiry must be 
made to that office. 
Thank you. 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, initially approved the preference visa petition 
on September 16,2009. On March 25, 2010 and on January 5,2011, the director issued Notices of 
Intent to Revoke (NOIR). In a Notice of Revocation (NOR) dated June 10, 2011, the director 
ultimately revoked the approval of the petition. The petition 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 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 June 10, 201 1. It is noted 
that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that he had 18 days to file the 
appeal. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time 
limit. 
Counsel dated the Form 1-2908 July 5, 2011, and it was received by the service center on July 11, 
2011, or 31 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(8)(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)(I)(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. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.