dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

PUBLIC COPY 
identifying data deleted C 
prevent dearly unwmteri 
invasion of pemmd privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 02 258 54065 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 1 4 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that orignally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
:v *. Robert P. Wiemann, Director ; i 0 Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 258 54065 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
Subsequently, the director affirmed that decision on motion. 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. tj 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. tj 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on December 22, 2004. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal 
January 24, 2005, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on Tuesday, January 25, 
2005, or 34 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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. 5 103.5(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.