dismissed
EB-1C
dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected because it was not filed within the required timeframe. The original decision was issued on November 20, 2012, and the appeal was not received until December 27, 2012, which was 37 days later and past the 33-day deadline 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
(b)(6) DATE JUN 1 1 2013 INRE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: ----- - ----ยท ----- - ------- OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servi ce~ Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services FILE: 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. ยง 1153(b)(l)(C) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. Please note that all documents have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please also note that any further inquiry must be made to that office. Thank you, Ron Rosenberg Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov (b)(6) Page2 DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition, which 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.P.R. ยง 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party or the attorney or representative of record must submit the complete appeal within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. Ifthe decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.P.R.ยง 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of submission, but the date of actual receipt with the required fee. See 8 C.P.R. ยง 1 03.2(a)(7)(i). The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on November 20, 2012. The petitioner had 33 days from the date of the decision to file the appeal. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time limit. The Form I-290B was not properly received by the service center until December 27, 2012, or 37 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. ยง 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) states that an appeal which is not filed within the time allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. ยง 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 Director of the Texas Service Center. See 8 C.P.R. ยง 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The director determined that the late appeal did not meet the requirements of 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.