dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleuri.y unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLICCOPV 
DATE: JUL 2 6 lOll OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b){I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b){I)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
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. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(J)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. 
§ IIS3(b)(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
Noting that the record was deficient, the director issued a request for additional evidence on June 19, 2009. 
After the petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence, the director issued a decision dated August 17, 
2009, denying the petition for abandonment, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(l3)(i). 
The director correctly informed the petitioner that no appeal would lie from the decision. Regardless, the 
petitioner submitted an appeal on December 14,2009. 
The regulations provide that no appeal lies from the denial of a petition for abandonment. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1S). As there is no appeal from the director's denial, the petitioner's appeal must be rejected. 
Additionally, the AAO notes that, even if the petition was not denied for abandonment, the appeal was 
untimely and would have been rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § J03.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l), which states that an 
appeal which is not filed within the time allowed must be rejected as improperly 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 appeal 
within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed 
within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.Sa(b). As noted above, the director issued the denial on August 17,2009. 
However, the petitioner filed the appeal on December 14, 2009, nearly four months after the date of the 
denial. For this additional reason, the appeal will be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.