dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 1 2w 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 I 153(b)(lI(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
ITVSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
. Wiemann, Director 
tf 
dministrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the employment-based petition. 
Upon subsequent review, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke 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. 9 103.2(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. fj 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 
April 5, 2004. The appeal was filed on October 26, 2004, more than six months after the decision was mailed. 
The AAO acknowledges that the beneficiary amended her address in August 2002; however, the record does not 
show that the petitioner changed its address. In addition, the AAO notes that the beneficiary is not the affected 
party in this proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)((l)(iii)(B). The record shows that the appeal was untimely 
filed. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
Without addressing the merits of the petitioner's claim, the AAO notes that the beneficiary cites to a recent 
opinion, Firstland Int% Inc. v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2004), issued by the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 2, 2004. However, according to the record of proceeding, the 
petitioner is located in California; thus this matter did not arise in the Second Circuit. Firstland was never a 
binding precedent for this matter. Moreover, even as a merely persuasive precedent, Firstlund is no longer 
good law. See the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (S. 2845) signed into law 
December 17, 2004. See Pub. L. No. 108-458, - Stat. (2004) and section 5304(d) of Public Law 108-458. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.