dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted tO
I 
revent clearly unw~nte(. 
invasion of personal pnvac) 
PUBLIC copy 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
DC:C 0 2 2010 
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. § ll53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
5 Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
· .. 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center. The matter 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. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the 
affected party must file the complete appeal with the office where the unfavorable decision was 
made 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 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 November 2, 2009. It is noted that the 
director properly gave notice to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file the appeal. The appeal was 
received by the director on Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 51 days after the decision was issued. 
Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
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 error 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 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. § 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. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider. The 
late appeal does not state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and is not supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. Moreover, the untimely appeal is unsupported 
precedent decisions to establish that the director's decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy. Accordingly, there is no requirement to 
treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. § 1 03. 3 (a)(2)(v)(B)(2). 
As the appeal was untimely filed and does not qualify as a motion, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.