dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
'1 2 90uF 
= J, 
SRC 04 05 1 52436 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 
Rhe-e 
%be* P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, Texas 
Service Center. On further review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was not eligible for 
the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director served the petitioner with notice of intent to revoke the approval 
of the immigrant visa petition, and the reasons therefore, and ultimately revoked the approval of the petition 
on January 3, 2006. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 205.2(d) provides that the affected party must "appeal the decision to revoke the 
approval within 15 days after the service of notice of the revocation." If the decision was mailed, the appeal 
must be filed within 18 days. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5a(b). 8 C.F.R. 9 l.l(h) explains that when the last day of a 
period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period shall run until the end of the next day that is 
not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on January 3, 2006.' The appeal was received by 
Citizenship and Immigration Services on February 3, 2006, 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)(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 service center director. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director declined to treat the late appeal as 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. 
1 
 We note that the director's notice of revocation incorrectly informed the petitioner that he had 30 days to file the 
appeal. The director's error, however, does not supersede the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2(d) requiring the petitioner's 
appeal to be filed within 15 days.