dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
;_:;;.: , ·~ 
DATE : JAN 2. 2 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship · 
a11d Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF REPRESENTED 
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. 
Thank you, 
yt:~ -· .. 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
.J 
/ 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION:· The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. 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 or the attom~y or representative of record 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of 
actual receipt at the designated filing location. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on June 16, 2011.
1 
The 
record reflects that the decision was mailed to the petitioner at its last known address, in accordance 
with 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(l). 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 pe11inent regulations grant 
the AAO authority to extend this time limit. 
The Form I-290B is dated February 20, 2012 and was received at the designated filing location on 
February 24, 2012 or 253 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely 
filed. 
The petitioner asserts that it did not receive the director's decision until January 2012 . In support of 
his assertion, petitioner provided a self-prepared and unsigned time-line leading up to its submission 
of the late appeal. An uncorroborated self-serving denial of receipt is weak evidence , even if sworn. 
Joshi v. Ashcroft, 389 F.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 notice, the 
AAO finds that the director's decision was properly issued by routine service. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.8(a)(l ). 
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.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to treat the late 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. 
1 The service center mailed a courtesy copy of the June 16, 2011 decision to the petitioner on or 
about January 23,2012, at the petitioner's request.