dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 03 172 50798 
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: 
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. 
'Q 
%obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as 
untimely filed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's 
receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien 
to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The criteria are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) as follows. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's orignal scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner's initial submission did not address these criteria. The director denied the petition because the 
petitioner's "intended employment clearly indicates that the [petitioner] does not meet the requirements for 
first preference classification." 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on August 13, 2003. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file the appeal. Although the petitioner dated the 
appeal September 8, 2003, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) with the proper fee 
on November 3,2003, or 82 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. 8 103.5(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.