dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwamted 
invasion of personal privac~ 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
@P?%Y+, f-4 
,. f b 
[ 
Y t 
** . 
1 
APR 2 7 2007 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 03 167 52506 
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) 
ON 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 
8 C .F.R. 1 03.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
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. 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The director determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
The record indicates that the decision of the director was mailed to the petitioner on February 16,2006. A Form 
I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), was received by the California Service 
Center on March 16, 2006, 28 days after the decision was mailed. However, the Form I-290B was not 
accompanied by the correct filing fee. A new filing fee of $385.00 became effective on September 28,2005. 70 
Fed. Reg. 50954-50957 (Aug. 29, 2005); 8 C.F.R. 5 103.7. On March 17, 2006, the California Service Center 
returned the Form I-290B to the petitioner and indicated that the proper fee of $385.00 was not attached. The 
California Service Center received the resubmitted Form I-290B with the proper $385.00 filing fee on March 23, 
2006. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the complete appeal within 30 days after 
service of the decision, or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was served by 
mail. Title 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i) requires Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to reject any petition or 
application filed with the incorrect filing fee. Likewise, filings which were rejected because they were submitted 
with incorrect filing fees do not retain filing dates. Therefore, in this matter, CIS is required to reject the appeal as 
untimely filed. Although the petitioner submitted the I-290B within 33 days of service of the decision, tlvs 
submission included the incorrect filing fee. Therefore, as indicated in the rejection notice, the fding did not 
retain a filing date. The actual filing date for the Form I-290B is March 23,2006, 35 days after the decision was 
served by mail. Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(4(2)(v)(B)(I). 
As CIS, which includes both the California Service Center and the AAO, lacks the authority to authorize an 
untimely appeal which failed to hold a filing date due to the submission of an incorrect filing fee, CIS is 
compelled to reject the appeal. Title 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) states in pertinent part that "[aln appeal 
which is not timely filed within the time allowed must be rejected as improperly filed." Therefore, under the 
regulations, CIS lacks the power to consider the untimely appeal. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit for filing an 
appeal. See Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006). Even if the appeal was delayed by the overnight 
delivery service, the enor would not warrant special consideration of the appeal. Id. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3), 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.