dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

I 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of persond privac: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Senices 
Ofje ofAdministrative Appeals. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
- 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
pwc copy 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 6 2009 
SRC 07 226 51510 
IN RE: 
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)(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
/CI hd l.1 k 
f John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. 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. 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. 5 103.5a(b). The date of filing is not the date of 
mailing, but the date of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on June 26, 2008.' It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal 
July 23,2008, it was postmarked July 30, 2008 and received by the director on August 4,2008, 39 days after 
the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. The director erroneously annotated the 
appeal as timely and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit for 
filing an appeal. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 9 103.5(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. 9 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the untimely appeal did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider as of 
the date of filing. Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.3(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. 
I 
 The director erroneously dated the decision "2007" instead of "2008." Electronic records, however, confirm 
that the petition was denied June 26, 2008.