dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: FFB 2 8 :'0@ 
EAC 01 143 50054 
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. 9 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON 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. 
R6bert P. Wiemann, Director 
\ Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, initially approved the employment-based petition. 
Upon subsequent review, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke approval and ultimately revoked 
approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) office shall be stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, 
executed, and accompanied by the correct fee. For calculating the date of filing, the appeal shall be regarded 
as properly filed on the date that it is so stamped by the service center or district office. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2(d) indicates that revocations of approvals must be appealed within 15 days 
after the service of the Notice of Revocation. The record indicates that the Notice of Revocation was mailed on 
January 13, 2004. The appeal was filed on February 13,2004, 31 days after the decision was mailed. Thus, the 
appeal was not timely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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 AAO observes that the record does not contain a brief or evidence in 
support of the appeal. 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.