dismissed EB-1C

dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Multinational Management

Decision Summary

The appeal was rejected as untimely filed. The decision was issued on March 4, 2004, giving the petitioner 33 days to file, but the appeal was not received until April 7, 2004, which was 34 days after the decision.

Criteria Discussed

Timeliness Of Appeal

Sign up free to download the original PDF

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 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.