dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of ger~8nd privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
94/ 
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) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
\-I 
% Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter 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. 9 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of after service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on January 26, 2005. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner1 that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although the appeal is dated 
February 26, 2005, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on March 2, 2005, or 35 
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. 9 103.5(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. 
Although the petitioner has a January 9, 2004 Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 
Representative, on file indicating that he was represented by an attorney, the AAO notes that this representative was 
suspended by the District of Columbia Bar for nonpayment of dues according to the bar's website, www.dcbar.org 
(accessed February 24,2006).