dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

U.S. Department of I-Iomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 8 2006 
WAC 98 137 50994 
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 1153(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. 
t 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, California Service Center, approved the petition for an immigrant visa. 
Following an investigation performed in connection with the beneficiary's 1-485 Application to Adjust Status, 
the director issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke and properly provided the petitioner thirty days within which 
to rebut the proposed revocation. The director subsequently 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 order to properly file an appeal of a decision to revoke approval of an immigrant petition, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d) provides that the affected party must file an appeal within 15 days after service of notice 
of revocation. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 18 days. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on December 20, 2005. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 18 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal 
January 6, 2006, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on January 13, 2006, or 24 
days after the decision was issued.' Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
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 service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 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. 
1 
 The record reflects that CIS received an incomplete Form I-290B, Notice of Appeals to the Administrative 
Appeals Office, from the petitioner's counsel on January 9, 2006. CIS returned the Form I-290B to the 
petitioner's counsel with instructions that the appeal could not be accepted because it had not been properly 
signed.