dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 3 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA 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 
FILE: 
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) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
Thank you, 
~iff--
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
rejected. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the 
affected party or the attorney or representative of record must file the complete appeal within 30 
days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed 
within 33 days. 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the actual date 
of receipt at the designated filing location. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). For calculating the date of 
filing, the appeal shall be regarded as properly filed on the date that its receipt was recorded by 
USCIS. A benefit request which is rejected will not retain a filing date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(iii). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on August 15, 2012. It is 
noted that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file 
the appeal and provided adequate instructions for filing the appeal in the decision. 
Although the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, is dated September 17, 2012, 33 days after 
the decision was issued, it was not received and deemed properly filed at the designated filing 
location until September 19, 2012, or 35 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. As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be 
rejected. 
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. The official having jurisdiction over a 
motion is the official who made the last decision in the proceeding, in this case the Director of the 
California Service Center. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to treat the appeal 
as a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
Additionally, the AAO notes for the record that even if the appeal had been timely filed, it would be 
summarily dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides that an officer to whom an appeal is taken shall 
summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
On appeal, the petitioner marked the box at part two of the Form I-290B to indicate that a brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The record indicates that the 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
petitioner did not file a brief or supplemental evidence within the allowed timeframe . On appeal , the 
petitioner simply state s: 
It is our position that managerial staff are still required, not just to manage other managers, 
but in fact to supervise any personnel and make day to day operational and financial decisions 
on the spending and purchasing of a corporation - no matter the size, therefore our brief will 
follow [sic]. 
The petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of 
the director as a basis for the appeal. As no erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact has been 
specifically identified and as no additional evidence is presented on appeal to overcome the decision of the 
director, the appeal, had it been timely filed, would be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected .