dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 3 2013 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S . Citizenship and Immigr ation Servi1 
Admini strative Appeal s Office (AAO) 
20 Massachuseus Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered , you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630.The 
specific requirement s for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(j) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
J:4-f Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was initially approved by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. On further review, the director determined that the beneficiary was not eligible 
for the benefit sought. The director subsequently issued a notice of intent to revoke and 
ultimately revoked approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal \~.rill be rejected as untimely filed. 
The record indicates that the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form l-140) was filed on 
March 26, 2010. It was initially approved on July 6, 2010. On October 2, 2012, the director 
issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the petition. The petitioner was afforded thirty 
days to offer additional evidence or argument in opposition to the proposed revocation. Upon 
review of the petitioner's response to this request and other evidence contained in the record, the 
director revoked the petition's approval on November 9, 2012. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 205.2(cl) provides that a petitioner "may appeal the decision to 
revoke the approval within 15 days after the service of notice of the revocation." If the decision 
was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 18 days. 8 C.P.R. § 103.8(b). If the last clay of the 
designated period falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, the period will run until the end 
of the next day, which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. See 8 C.P.R. § 1.1(h). The 
date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of actual receipt at the designated filing 
location. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on November 9, 2012. It is noted that 
the director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 18 clays to file the appeal. The 
deadline for filing an appeal from the director's decision fell on Tuesday, November 27, 2012. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the total 18-day 
time limit for filing an appeal. 
Although the Form I-290B is dated November 21, 2012, it was mailed on November 27, 2012, 
and received at the designated filing location on November 28, 2012, or 19 days after the 
decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 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 
Director of the Nebraska Service Center. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The director declined to 
treat the 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.