dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

dentlljhg 6- dctid to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
b-0~ of persona1 pivacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIC COPY 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: &N 1 61 iuU6 
WAC 98 130 53166 
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. 8 1 1 53(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. 
J 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DJSCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. Upon further review, the director determined that the petition had been approved in error. The 
director properly served the petitioner with a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), and subsequently revoked the 
approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. 
The regulation requires that an appeal from the revocation of a petition must be filed within 15 days after the 
service of the notice of revocation. 8 C.F.R. fj 205.2(d). If the notice was mailed, the appeal must be filed 
within 18 days. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5a(b). 
The record in this case indicates that the director issued the revocation decision on July 20, 2004. It is noted 
that the director improperly gave notice to the petitioner that his appeal must be filed within 33 days of the 
revocation decision. The director's improper notice of appeal rights does not extend the regulatory 
requirement that the appeal of a revocation decision issued by mail must be filed within 18 days. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS) received the petitioner's Notice of Appeal on August 23, 2004 or 33 days 
after the director's decision was issued. The appeal was thus untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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. tj 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
The appeal was untimely filed and consequently must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.