dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

DATE: OCT 0 3 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
orfice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. J)cpartment of Homeland Sccurit~' 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washine.t.0n, DC 205~9-2090 
U.S. Litizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c, § IIS3(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your casco All of the documents 
related to this mattcr 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, 
Perry Rhcw 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petitIOn, The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal based on a finding that the 
petitioner misrepresented material facts within his petition filing in addition to his failure to 
demonstrate eligibility for the classification sought The matter is now before the AAO on a second 
appeaL The appeal will be rejected, 
The record indicates that the AAO issued the decision on the first appeal on January 23, 2012, The 
petitioner then filed the present appeal on March 1, 2012. 
The petitioner's appeal must be rejected. The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over its 
own decisions. The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over only the matters described at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28, 2003). See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1(effective 
March 1,2003). Accordingly, the appeal is not properly within the AAO's jurisdiction. 
As noted in the AAO's cover leiter, the petitioner had the option of filing a motion to reopen or a 
motion to reconsider the AAO's most recent decision within 33 days of service pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5, but the petitioner checked the box indicating he was filing an appeal within Part 2 of the 
Form 1-290B. Within Part 3 of the Form 1-290B, the petitioner referenced that he was filing a 
motion to reconsider. The burden is on the petitioner to select the appropriate filing on the Form 1-
290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion rather than to rely on the AAO to infer or second-guess the 
petitioner's intent. As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 
§103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). In the alternative, the appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(I) provides: 
General. Every application, petition, appeal, motion, request, or other document 
submitted on the form prescribed by this chapter ... must be filed with the location 
and executed in accordance with the instructions on the form, such instructions being 
hereby incorporated into the particular section of the regulations .... 
As it pertains to the proper filing of an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides: 
Filing Appeal. The affected party shall file an appeal on Form 1-290B. Except as 
otherwise provided in this chapter, the affected party must pay the fee required by 
§103.7 of this part. The affected party shall file the complete appeal including any 
supporting brief with the office where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 
days after service of the decision. 
If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). The 
date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of actual receipt with the required fee. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the AAO issued the decision on January 23, 2012, and properly gave notice 
to the petitioner that the file would be returned to the office that made the original determination in 
the case and that any subsequent request or filing should be made with that office, specifically the 
Page 3 
Texas Service Center. Despite the clear instructions in the director's notice and on the Form 1-290B 
that the form should '"not be submitted directly to the AAO," the petitioner sent the appeal to the 
AAO. The AAO returned the form to the petitioner on February 23, 2012. USCIS received the 
properly filed appeal on March 1,2012, or 38 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the 
appeal was untimel y filed. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit 
for filing an appeal. Regardless, as stated above, the AAO has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal 
of its own decision; thus, the filing is rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.