dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAR 29 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
US. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Pursuant to Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. Please note that all documents have 
been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please also note that any further inquiry must be 
made to that office. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which 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.P.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the 
affected party or the attorney or representative of record must submit 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'P.R. § 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of submission, but the 
date of actual receipt with the required fee. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on August 19, 2010. It is 
noted that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file 
the appeal. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time 
limit. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that it never received the notice of deniaL In support of these 
assertions, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief stating that the petitioner did not receive the 
notice of denial until January 25, 2011, when USCIS issued a duplicate notice in response to a 
Congressional inquiry. The petitioner also submitted documents evidencing its attempt to determine 
the status of the petition. 
However, an uncorroborated, self-serving denial of receipt is weak evidence, even if sworn. Joshi v. 
Ashcroft, 389 P.3d 732, 735-736 (7th Cir. 2004). Absent independent and objective evidence to 
support the petitioner's claim that it did not receive a copy of the director's denial, the AAO finds 
that the director's decision was properly issued by routine service. 8 C.P.R. § 103.8(a). Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
USCIS records confirm that the director issued the denial on August 19, 2010. Although counsel 
signed and dated the Porm 1-290B as of Pebruary 10, 2011, the service center did not receive the 
appeal until Pebruary 18, 2011, or 183 days after the director issued the decision. Accordingly, the 
appeal was untimely filed. 
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. 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 
Texas Service Center. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The director determined that the late appeal 
did not meet the requirements of 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.