dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLTCCOPY 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: 
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 
Date: 
JAN 06 lOll 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIS3(b)(I)(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. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
~hief' Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, 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 after 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. § 103.2(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 otlice. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on May 21, 2007. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. It appears that the petitioner made 
an initial attempt to file the appeal on June 26, 2007. It is noted that even if June 26, 2007 were deemed the 
filing date of the appeal, it would have been deemed untimely as it was filed 36 days after the denial was 
issued. The record shows that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ultimately received the appeal with 
the correct filing fee on March 25, 2008, which is approximately ten months after the denial had been 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. § 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 proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
atlidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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. § 103.5(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). 
Furthermore, a review of the record shows that even if the appeal had been timely filed, it would have been 
dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(v), which states that any appeal that fails to identify specifically 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact shall be summarily dismissed. Here, the only statements 
made on appeal consisted of three assertions that represented the petitioner's disagreement with the director's 
findings. None of the three statements indicated that the director made erroneous legal conclusions or that he 
somehow misstated the facts. 
Page 3 
Regardless, as the appeal was untimely filed and does not qualify as a motion, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.