dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: /YAR 3 1 lu~b 
WAC 96 099 5 1526 
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. 5 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. 
4Z.i. &A- 
ykob'lrt P. Wiernann, D~rector 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, approved the employment-based visa petition. In a 
subsequent decision, the director 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 the revocation of a petition's approval, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205.2 
provides that a petitioner must file the appeal within 15 days after service of notice of the revocation. If the 
decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 18 days. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on September 7, 2005. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 18 days to file the appeal. According to the date stamp on 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on October 
20,2005, or 43 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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.