dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

.. .. f • 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLtCCOPY 
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 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: MAR 1 9 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 
Petition: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(1)(C) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
cOO--
h 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
:4'...... , • 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
petitioner subsequently filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) to review the director's 
decision. The director determined that the appeal was untimely filed and rejected it. The matter is now 
before the AAO on appeal. 1 The appeal will be rejected as untimely and improperly filed. 
Upon review, it is determined that the director lacked jurisdiction to take action on an appeal that was filed 
with the AAO. Regardless of whether or not the director made a proper determination as to the timely filing 
of an appeal, the fact remains that the director lacks jurisdiction over an appellate matter and his decision to 
reject the petitioner's appeal based on its untimely filing must therefore be withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the AAO's withdrawal of the director's decision concerning the Form 1-290B with receipt 
numb~ the appeal was untimely filed and must be rejected pursuant to relevant regulations. 
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 February 5, 201 O. 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 March 8, 2010, it was not received by the service center 
until March 16, 2010, or 39 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 record shows that the official having 
jurisdiction over the motion, i.e., the director, considered the matter and determined that the 
petitioner did not meet the regulatory motion requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). 
Additionally, the record shows that this was the second appeal filed to address the director's 
February 5, 2010 decision. 2 There is no statute or regulation that permits the petitioner to file more 
than one appeal addressing a single adverse decision. Therefore, the AAO finds that in addition to 
1 The record shows that the petitioner filed two separate Form 1-290Bs. 
shows a receipt date of March 10, 2010 with receipt number 
shows a receipt date of March 16, 2010 with receipt H~"HV'''' 
2 See FN 1. 
The initially filed Form 1-290B 
and the instant Form 1-290B 
.. , . 
its untimely filing, the instant appeal was also not permissible and therefore is deemed as improperly 
filed. 
As the appeal was untimely and improperly filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.