dismissed EB-1C Case: Petroleum

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3042,425 I Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 02 173 52409 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: F~B 0 7 2m 
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. 9 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
IN 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 173 52409 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
petitioner filed a subsequent appeal and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed that appeal. The 
petitioner filed a motion on the AAO decision and the AAO determined that the motion was not filed in a 
timely manner. The AAO rejected the motion as late. The matter is now before the AAO on a second motion 
to reconsider. The motion will be rejected. 
The petitioner is a California company that claims to import and export petroleum-related goods. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its presidendchief executive officer and, therefore, endeavors to classify the 
beneficiary as a multinational executive or manager pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(C). The director denied the petition because the proffered 
position is not in a managerial or executive capacity, and the petitioner had not been doing business as that 
term is defined in the regulations. On appeal, the AAO overturned the director's conclusions regarding the 
petitioner's business operations, finding that the petitioner had been doing business. The AAO, however, 
concurred with the director that the beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The AAO dismissed the appeal on August 29, 2003. On October 27, 2003, 59 days after the AAO decision, 
counsel for the petitioner filed a motion seeking to reopen or reconsider that decision. After reviewing the 
record, the AAO rejected the motion as the appeal had not been filed in a timely manner. 
Counsel for the petitioner now submits a copy of an electronic record from Federal Express Corp. (FedEx) 
indicating that the petitioner submitted the motion on September 29, 2003. Counsel asserts that the motion 
was timely and properly filed. 
Contrary to the regulations and the instructions in the AAO decision, the electronic FedEx record indicates 
that the petitioner submitted the motion directly to the AAO and not the California Service Center, as the 
office maintaining the original record. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(E). In addition, the original AAO decision 
specifically instructed the petitioner that any motion must be filed with the office that originally decided the 
case. See AAO decision dated August 29, 2003. The actual date of receipt for the motion is October 27, 
2003, the date that the motion was properly filed with the California Service center. 
An affected party has 30 days from the date of an adverse decision to file a motion to reopen or reconsider a 
proceeding before Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). If the adverse 
decision was served by mail, an additional three-day period is added to the prescribed period. 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.5a(b). Since the original motion was untimely filed, 59 days after the adverse decision, the AAO 
properly rejected the motion. 
As the motion was prop'erly rejected by the AAO, there is no decision on the part of the AAO that may be 
reopened in this proceeding. Again, the motion must be rejected. 
ORDER: The motion Is rejected.