dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

denU$ng data de1etcd.b 
pievent clearly unwarranted 
.invasion ol peffonel prh.ecy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 03 138 53058 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JAP8 1 0 2006 
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. 3 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. 
bd ,J Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
i 
EAC 03 138 53058 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and 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. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days 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 shows that the director issued the decision on January 19, 2005. The director informed the 
petitioner that an appeal would have to be filed with the Vermont Service Center within 30 days from the date 
of his decision, or within 33 days if the decision was sent by mail. The petitioner's appeal was received by 
the Vermont Service Center on February 23, 2005 or 35 days after the director's decision was issued. The 
appeal was thus untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 8 103.5(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.