dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of E-lomeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
identifying data deld 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
pnvent clearly unwamrd 
 U. S. Citizenship 
invasion of persona! privan 
 and Immigration 
0PY 
pqJBLlC C 
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: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and 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 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. 5 
103.5a(b). The date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on August 21, 2008. It is noted that the 
director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner 
dated the appeal September 30, 2008 and it was initially submitted on October 3, 2008. However, 
the filing was rejected for failure to pay the proper fee. As such, the petition did not retain the 
October 3,2008 filing date. Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i): 
An application or petition which is not properly signed or is submitted with the 
wrong filing fee shall be rejected as improperly filed. Rejected applications and 
petitions, and ones in which the check or other financial instrument used to pay 
the filing fee is subsequently returned as non-payable will not retain a filing date. 
The appeal was considered properly filed on October 16, 2008 when it was filed with the required 
filing fee. 
 Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
 The director, however, erroneously 
annotated the appeal as timely and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit 
for filing an appeal. 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. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(2). A motion to 
reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service 
policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also 
establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial 
decision. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. €j 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the untimely appeal provides the following reason for the appeal: 
The Decision failed to provide detailed explanation of denial on the basis of law. 
Petitioner's evidence met the burden to show the he is an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
This explanation does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. 
9 103*3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). 
Moreover, the petitioner's general statement regarding the director's decision is also not sufficient to 
meet the requirements for filing a substantive appeal. The petitioner did not elaborate on his 
argument, cite to specific errors on the part of the director or describe any evidence the director 
allegedly failed to analyze. Further, despite the petitioner's assertion that he would submit a brief 
and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days, to date, no submission has been received. 
Accordingly, the record is considered to be complete as it now stands. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the 
party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. 
Therefore, even if the petitioner's appeal was timely filed, his petition would be summarily dismissed as 
he failed to specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in th~s proceeding. 
As the appeal was untimely filed and does not qualify as a motion, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.