dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OCT 0 7 2011 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
~
f){unl~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
rej ect the appeal. 
Under the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a), as 
well as the instructions to the Form 1-290B Notice of Appeal, if an attorney files an appeal with the 
Administrative Appeals Office, the filing must include a newly executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry 
of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, even if the record includes an older form from the 
same attorney. This regulation applies to all appeals filed on or after March 4, 2010. See 75 Fed. 
Reg. 5225 (February 2, 2010). 
The petitioner filed Form 1-140 on March 2, 2009, with Form G-28 dated January 1, 2009. The 
director denied the petition on January 11, 2010. Counsel filed the appeal on March 23, 2010, but 
the filing did not include a new Form G-28 as required. 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(2), if an appeal is otherwise properly filed 
without a Form G-28, then USCIS must contact the attorney and attempt to obtain the required form. 
Here, however, as the appeal was not otherwise properly filed, the AAO will not request a Form G-
28 and the petitioner will be considered as self-represented. 
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 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. 
§ 1 03.5a(b). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (h) explains that when the last day of a period falls on a 
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period shall run until the end of the next day that is not a 
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 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). 
Again, the record indicates that the director issued the decision on January 11,2010. It is noted that 
the director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The notice 
was mailed to counsel's address as reflected on his January 1,2009 Form G-28. Although a copy of 
the denial was later re-mailed to counsel's present address, the record reflects that the decision was 
properl y mailed to counsel's address of record. 
In a letter dated March 22, 2010, submitted on appeal, counsel claims that the appeal was timely 
filed as only "[a]fter numerous inquiries, [was] a copy of the decision was mailed to this office on 
02125/2010." The AAO notes again, however, that the director's decision was mailed to counsel's 
address as indicated on the Form G-28 contained in the record at that time. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5a(a)(l) (service of notices and decisions consists of mailing copies to the last known 
address). Counsel's claim regarding the timeliness of the appeal based upon the failure to receive 
the denial notice is not persuasive. The director's reliance on the unrevoked address furnished by 
counsel on the existing Form G-28 was proper. See, e.g., Tobeth-Tangang v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 
537,540 (l5t Cir. 2006); Radkov v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 96,99 (l5t Cir. 2004). 
Page 3 
In this case, the petitioner's appeal was not received by the director until March 23, 2010, 71 days 
after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(8)(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 Director of the 
Nebraska Service Center. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The director determined that the late 
appeal did not meet the requirements of 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.