dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 2 9 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
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) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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. 
JRon Rosenberg 
( ucting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center , denied the immigrant visa 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. § 1 03.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the 
affected party or the attorney or representative of record 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. § 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of 
actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i) . 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on July 31, 2012. It is noted 
that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the 
appeal. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time 
limit. 
Counsel dated the Form I-290B as of September 19, 2012 , and it was received by the service center 
on September 25, 2012, or 55 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was 
untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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 Director of the 
Texas Service Center. See 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
The matter will therefore be returned to the director. If the director determines that the late appeal 
meets the requirements of a motion, the motion shall be granted and a new decision will be issued. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.