dismissed EB-1B Case: Academia

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
~dentifybg data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwamantec2 
invasion of ~crsonal orivao 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 3 2006 
WAC 97 242 50935 
Petition: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(B) 
IN 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. 
trfRobert P. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition. On fixther review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was 
not eligible for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director properly served the petitioner with notice 
of intent to revoke the approval of the visa petition, and his reasons therefore, and ultimately revoked 
the approval of the petition on August 25, 2005. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. 
The petitioner lists its type of business as "university." It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
outstanding professor pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as an associate professor. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for 
classification as an outstanding professor. The director also questioned whether the petitioner was a 
qualifying employer for the classification sought. 
The appeal was filed on Thursday, September 22, 2005, 28 days after the decision was rendered. 
According to the pertinent regulations, the appeal was not timely filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 205.2(d) states that revocations of approvals must be appealed within 15 days after the service of the 
notice of revocation. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 18 days. See 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b). The notice of revocation advised the petitioner of the 18-day deadline. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. Ej 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. 5 103.5(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.