dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 08 016 52742 APi? 0 8 2010 
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) 
ON 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. 
V Peny Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of after service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b). The date of filing is not the date of 
mailing, but the date of actual receipt, which shall be stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it 
is properly signed, executed, and accompanied by the correct fee. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(a)(7)(i). For 
calculating the date of filing, the appeal shall be regarded as properly filed on the date that it is so stamped by 
the service center or district office. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on January 6, 2009. The director properly gave 
notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although the petitioner initially attempted to file 
the appeal on February 10, 2009, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) returned the appeal to 
the petitioner because it had been submitted with an incorrect filing fee. It is noted that 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.2(a)(7)(i) requires that USCIS reject any petition or application filed with the incorrect filing fee. 
Accordingly, the appeal was returned to the petitioner along with a notice dated February 12, 2009, informing 
the petitioner of the correct filing fee. USCIS received the appeal with the correct filing fee on February 23, 
2009, or 48 days after the denial was issued. Therefore, the appeal was untimely filed. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit for 
filing an appeal. However, 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. A motion to reopen must state the new facts 
to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 
C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by 
any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
Service policy.1 A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also 
establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). As 
the appeal was untimely filed and does not qualify as a motion, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
Although the AAO notes that counsel refers to the contents of a previously issued Service memorandum, it 
is noted that USCIS memoranda merely articulate internal guidelines for service personnel; they do not 
establish judicially enforceable rights. An agency's internal personnel guidelines "neither confer upon 
[plaintiffs] substantive rights nor provide procedures upon which [they] may rely." Loa-Herrera v. Trorninski, 
23 1 F.3d 984, 989 (5th Cir. 2000)(quoting Fano v. O'Neill, 806 F.2d 1262, 1264 (5th Cir.1987)).