dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

4 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrantec. 
@vasion ofpersonal privacj 
PI BLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 08 168 51495 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Imrmgrant 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 1 153(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. 
John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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. 5 103.3(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. 8 103.5a(b). The 
date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on August 4, 2008. It is noted that the 
director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although 
counsel dated the appeal August 4, 2008, the same date as the date the denial was issued, it was sent 
via Federal Express on Monday, September 8, 2008 and was received by the director on Tuesday, 
September 9, 2008, which is 35 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was 
untimely filed. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit 
for filing an appeal. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(2). Based on the plain 
meaning of "new," a new fact is found to be evidence that was not available and could not have been 
discovered or presented in the previous proceeding.1 A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for 
reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on 
an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not 
meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4). 
In the present matter, counsel does not present any new facts and therefore fails to establish that the 
submissions on appeal meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. With regard to the motion to 
reconsider, while counsel submits a copy of a relevant section of the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services Field Manual, this document is not a precedent decision. Rather, the field 
manual merely articulates internal guidelines for service personnel; it does not establish judicially 
enforceable rights. An agency's internal personnel guidelines "neither confer upon [plaintiffs] 
substantive rights nor provide procedures upon which [they] may rely." Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 
231 F.3d 984, 989 (5th Cir. 2000)(quoting Fano v. OrNeill, 806 F.2d 1262, 1264 (5th Cir.1987)). 
1 
 The word "new" is defined as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time . . . 3. Just 
discovered, found, or learned <new evidence> . . . ." WEBSTER'S I1 NEW RIVERSIDE UNNERS~IY 
DICTIONARY 792 (1 984)(emphasis in original). 
Page 3 
Therefore, the untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to 
reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). 
As the appeal was untimely filed and does not qualify as a motion, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.