dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of fIomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: 
WAC 00 257 52971 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
Petition: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
IN 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. 
, - 7 & 
~oben ~l'emann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference immigrant petition was initially granted. However, upon further review, the 
Director, California Service Center, determined that the petitioner may be ineligible for the immigration 
benefit sought and issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) the approval. The approval was subsequently 
revoked in a separate decision issued by the director. The matter is presently before Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. 
In order to properly file an appeal of a decision revoking a prior approval, 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2(d) provides that 
the affected party must file the appeal within 15 days of service of the notice of revocation. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on July 15, 2005. The record also shows that the 
petitioner's Form I-290B appeal was received at the designated service center on August 17,2005, or 33 days 
after the decision was issued. While the AAO acknowledges that the director improperly gave notice to the 
petitioner that it had 30 days to file the appeal, the regulations, not the director, govern the requirements for 
filing an appeal. The AAO does not have the discretionary authority to consider an appeal that has not been 
timely filed. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 15-day time 
limit for filing an appeal of a revoked immigrant petition. See Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 
2006). As the petitioner in the instant matter failed to comply with the time restriction specifically cited in 
8 C.F.R. 8 205.2(d), the appeal cannot be deemed timely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I) states that an appeal which is not filed within the time 
allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. Accordingly, the appeal in the instant case will be rejected as 
untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected as untimely filed.