dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave , N W , Rm. A3042 
,-. Washington, DC 20529 
c U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
A 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 2 7 
WAC 01 277 53613 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SHAHLA KHAN 
14 WALL STREET, 2oTH FL. 
NEW YORK, NY 10005 
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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
dministrative Appeals Office k 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: .The immigrant visa petition was initially approved on ~ovember 21, 2002. Upon further 
review, the Director, ~alifomia Service Center, determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility at 
the time of filing and properly issued a notice dated December 6,2005 informing the petitioner of Citizenship 
and Immigration Services' (CIS) intent tb revoke the prior approval ofthe petition. The approval' was 
ultimately revoked in a final decision dated February 16, 2006: The service denter rejected the petitioner's 
subsequent appeal as untimely filed. The matter is cuq-ently before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
for review. The AAO affirms the director's finding regarding the untimely filing and rejects the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(iv) states the following: 
If the reviewing official will not be taking favorable action or decides favorable action is not 
warranted, that official shall promptly forward the appeal and the related record of the 
 , 
proceeding to the AA[O] in Washington, D.C. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) further states that, if an untlmely 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). 
In the present matter, the director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion. However, instead of 
forwarding the matter to the AAO, the director found that the appeal was untimely filed and rejected it. 
Despite the director's accurate finding, the power to take any action with regard to an appeal rests with the 
AAO. The director lacks jurisdiction to consider any matter regarding an appeal, including the timely or 
untimely filing thereof. Accordingly, the AAO hereby withdraws the director's rejection of the appeal and 
issues its own proper finding. 
In order to properly file an appeal of a revocation, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 205.2(d) provides that the 
affected party must file the appeal within 15 days of service of the unfavorable decision. 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a CIS office shall be stamped to show 
the tlme and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, executed, and accompanied by the correct fee. For 
calculating the date of filing, the motion shall be regarded as properly filed on the date that it is so stamped by . 
the service center or d~stnct office. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on February 16, 2006. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 15 days to file the appeal with an additional three days 
provided to any decision that is mailed. 
The petitioner in the instant matter made its first attempt to file an appeal on March 14, 2006, which is 26 
days after the director issued the notice of revocation. As the petitioner improperly submitted the appeal 
directly to the AAO, the AAO returned the petitioner's appeal with instructions regarding proper submission. 
The petitioner subsequently resubmitted the appeal, which was received on March 24, 2006, or 36 days after 
* 
 Page 3 
the decision was issued. Therefore, neither of the petitioner's attempts would have resulted in a timely filed 
appeal. 
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 t~me 
allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. Accordingly, the appeal in the instant case will be rejected as 
untimely filed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected as untimely filed.