dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE OC1 \) \ 'l.U\l Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immi gration Services 
Administr ative Appeals Offi ce (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 (AAO) in your case. 
Thank you, 
~:.!f;c 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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.F.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.F.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.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on December 19, 2012. It is 
noted that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file 
the appeal, as the denial was mailed. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO 
authority to extend this time limit. 
The appeal was due no later than January 21, 2013, but was not mailed until January 22, 2013 and 
not properly filed with the proper fee until Wednesday, January 23, 2013. 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 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.