dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
u. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
WAC 96 010 50410 
Petition: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1153(b)(l)(C) 
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. 
DISCUSSION: The preference immigrant petition was initially granted. However, upon further review, the 
Director, California Service Center, determined that the petitioner may be ineligible for the immigration 
benefit sought and issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) the approval. The approval was subsequently 
revoked in a separate decision issued by the director.' The matter is presently before the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as improperly filed. 
In order to properly file an appeal of a decision revoking a prior approval, 8 C.F.R. (5 205.2(d) provides that 
the affected party must file the appeal within 15 days of service of the notice of revocation. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on November 23, 2005. The director sent the 
decision to both the petitioner and to the petitioner's counsel of record at their last known addresses of record. 
The record also shows that the petitioner's Form I-290B appeal was received at the designated service center 
on Thursday, December 22,2005, or 29 days after the decision was issued. The director properly gave notice 
to the petitioner that it had 15 days to file the appeal (1 8 days if the notice was mailed). 8 C.F.R. 4 205.2(d); 
8 C.F.R. (5 103.5a(b). 
The AAO does not have the discretionary authority to consider an appeal that has not been timely filed. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the MO authority to extend the 15-day time limit for 
filing an appeal of a revoked immigrant petition. See Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006). As 
the petitioner in the instant matter failed to comply with the time restriction specifically cited in 8 C.F.R. (5 
205.2(d), the appeal cannot be deemed timely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. (5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) states that an appeal which is not filed within the time 
allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. Accordingly, the appeal in the instant case will be rejected. 
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 as described in 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
4 103.5(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. tj 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
In this matter, it is noted that the appeal does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reopen or 
reconsider. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a). This regulation states in pertinent part that "[a] motion to reopen must state 
the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence." Id. Furthermore, "[a] motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be 
' It should be noted that, according to California state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in 
California is "suspended." Therefore, as the petitioner has lost all rights and powers for failure to meet 
statutory filing requirements, the company can no longer be considered a legal entity in the United States. As 
such, even if the appeal had been properly filed and the issues raised on appeal were overcome, given the 
petitioner's current corporate status in the United States, it appears the petition could not have been approved 
for this additional reason alone and, in fact, renders it subject to automatic revocation without prior notice. 
See 8 C.F.R. 4 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(D). 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] policy." Id. 
First, the record indicates that counsel to the petitioner submitted his brief to the California Service Center on 
or about January 19,2006,28 days after the Form I-290B was filed. However, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 
103.3(a)(2)(viii) and the instructions to Form I-290B require the affected party to submit the brief or evidence 
directly to the AAO, not to the Service Center. Because the affected party did not follow the regulations or 
the instructions, the brief was not properly filed and, therefore, it may not be used as a basis in granting a 
motion to reopen or reconsider the late appeal. 
Second, even if the brief and attachments submitted to USCIS on January 19,2008 had been properly submitted 
to the AAO, the petitioner offers no "new" evidence, which could not have been presented in the initial 
proceeding. Likewise, counsel fails to cite to any pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the director's 
decision was an incorrect application of law or CIS policy. 
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and does not meet the requirements of a motion. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected as improperly filed.