dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: 
RE: 
EAC 03 022 53881 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: .jUN 1 5 ?01# 
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 1 153(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 originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
1 
/' Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
J Administrative Appeals Office 
-" 
EAC 03 022 53881 
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. 5 103.3(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. 3 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on September 27, 2004. It is noted that the director 
improperly stated that the petitioner had 15 days to appeal. This error has not prejudiced the petitioner, 
however, because counsel, on page two of his letter accompanying Form I-290B, states that he is aware of the 
correct time allowed for filing the appeal. Despite his awareness of the 33-day time limit, counsel's appeal 
was received by CIS on November 9, 2004, or 43 days after the decision was issued. The appeal was 
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. 5 103.5(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.