dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clealT, c1nwarranted 
invasion of personal privac\ 
lYtmLlC copy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
JAN 06 ZUl1 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1 I 53(b){1 )(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. 
~rry Rhew . 
Vief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
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. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(b). The date of filing is not the date 
of mailing, but the date of actual receipt, which shall be stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if 
it is properly signed, executed, and accompanied by the correct fee. See 8 C.F.R. § \03.2(a)(7)(i). For 
calculating the date of filing, the appeal shall be regarded as properly filed on the date that it is so stamped by 
the service center or district office. 
The record indicates that the director issued his latest decision on May 27, 2009. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The record shows that the Form 1-
290B was submitted for express mailing at the U.S. Postal Service on June 30, 2009, or 34 days after the 
decision. The appeal was received by the director on July 1,2009, or 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. § I 03.3(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 proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 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.' 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. § \03.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
, The word "new" is defined as "I. having existed or been made for only a short time ... 3. Just discovered, 
found, or learned <new evidence> "WEBSTER'S 1\ NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 
(1984)( emphasis in original).