dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

identifying data &Ieted to 
prevent cles!:, ~mwmted 
invasion of pawtul privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
jLk&L- 
y~obert P. iemann, Chief 
f Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based 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. ij 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days after service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. ij 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on February 16, 2006. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although the petitioner dated the 
appeal March 16,2006, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on March 22,2006, or 
34 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 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. 4 103.5(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.