dismissed
EB-1C
dismissed EB-1C Case: Management
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected as untimely filed. The director's decision was issued on February 20, 2004, and the appeal was received on March 26, 2004, which is 35 days later, exceeding the 33-day filing period for mailed decisions.
Criteria Discussed
Timely Filing Of Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 Washington, DC 20529 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration 8?.w d(~f$ "2e&Lp -" -,< File: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 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. 4 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. Administrative Appeals 6ffice DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 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. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5a(b). The record indicates that the director issued the decision on February 20, 2004. It is noted that the director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal March 16, 2004, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on March 26, 2004, or 35 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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 service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(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.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.