dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

identifLing data deleted to 
prevent clearly mwmtd 
mvasion of pinod privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of fiomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 03 053 54036 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
y~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and a subsequent 
appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The matter is now before the AAO on a 
motion to reopen. The motion will be rejected as untimely filed. 
In order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the motion 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. fj 103.5a(b). The failure to file before this period expires 
may be excused at the discretion of the AAO where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and 
beyond the control of the petitioner. 8 C.F.R. fj 1 03.5(a)(l)(i). 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) office shall be stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, 
executed, and accompanied by the correct fee. For calculating the date of filing, the motion shall be regarded 
as properly filed on the date that it is so stamped by the service center or district office. 
The last decision of the AAO was issued on April 5, 2005. The motion was filed on January 8, 2007, almost 
two years after the AAO decision was issued. 
On motion, the petitioner has requested that the failure to file the motion within the 30-day time period be 
excused. The petitioner asserts that the delay in filing the motion was beyond the petitioner's control. The 
petitioner contends ineffective assistance of its two previous counsels, claiming that its most recent counsel 
failed to file proper documentation, such as a motion to reopen, to rectify the mistakes purportedly made by 
its previous counsel. The petitioner claims that it was "led to believe that this case had been pending," which 
resulted in the untimely filing of the current motion to reopen. 
As a matter of discretion, the petitioner's failure to file the motion within the period allowed will not be 
excused as either reasonable or beyond the control of the petitioner. The record indicates that the petitioner 
was not represented by counsel in its March 8, 2004 appeal to the AAO. The AAO notes that the petitioner's 
March 8, 2004 appeal was the last filing to be made with respect to the adjudication of the immigrant visa 
petition and directly preceded the instant motion to reopen. In its April 5, 2005 decision, the AAO 
acknowledged that the petitioner was self-represented, and, according to CIS procedure, mailed the decision 
directly to the petitioner. As a result, the claim that the petitioner was led to believe that the adjudication of 
the immigrant visa petition was pending is not plausible, considering the petitioner itself handled the prior 
appeal. Accordingly, the motion will be rejected as untimely filed. 
ORDER: The motion is rejected as untimely filed.