dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

id.ntifylftl data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLTCCOPY 
DATE Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
SEP 1 4 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrnnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11S3(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 immigrant visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as 
untimely filed. The AAO will return the matter to the director for consideration as a motion to 
reopen and reconsider. 
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 attorney 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5a(b). The date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date 
of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on July 27,2009. 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. 
Although counsel dated the Form I-290B August 26,2009, it was not received by the service center 
until September 14, 2009, or 49 days after the decision was issued. 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.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). 
Here, as the brief in this matter was submitted directly to the AAO in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(viii), it is apparent that the director did not have an opportunity to fully review the late 
appeal to determine whether it meets the requirements of either a motion to reopen or a motion to 
reconsider. Therefore, the matter will be returned to the director. If the director determines that the 
late appeal meets the requirements of a motion, the motion shall be granted and a new decision will 
be issued. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.