dismissed
EB-1C
dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected as untimely filed. The director's decision was issued on March 4, 2004, and the petitioner was allowed 33 days to file the appeal. The appeal was received on April 7, 2004, 34 days after the decision was issued, and was therefore one day late.
Criteria Discussed
Timeliness Of Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
US. Department of Homeland Security FILE: WAC 03 113 5473 1 Off IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Aliel Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: This is the decision of the Administrative A the office that originally decided your case. Administrative Appe&ls Office f-3 1 " 20 ass. Ave., N.W.; &n. A3042 Washington, DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration :: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: U" 'k ' %I ?':I1:,"' 3 Vorker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to migration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. ยง 1153(b)(l)(C) eals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to ny further inquiry must be made to that office. WAC 03 113 54731 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The Director, California rvice Center, denied the petition for an employment-based visa. The matter is now before the Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. In order to properly file an appeal, the at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party must file the complete appeal within service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5a(b). The record indicates that the director issu the decision on March 4, 2004. It is noted that the director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal April 6, 2004, it was received by Immigration Services (CIS) on April 7, 2004, or 34 days after the decision was issued. was untimely filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)( states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made the last decision in the proceeding, center director. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to treat the late forwarded the matter to the AAO. As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal /nust be rejected. ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 1
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.