remanded EB-1C Case: Business Management

PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: DEC 0 9 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and lrrunigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U,S,C. § I I 53(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 . 
.. , Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscls.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
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.Sa(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 August 20, 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 the petitioner attempted to submit the Form I-290B on October IS, 2009, the appeal was 
returned to the petitioner because it was not properly filed at the correct address. The petitioner then 
submitted the Form 1-290 to the proper address and it was received on November 2,2009, or 74 days 
after the decision was issued. Therefore, the appeal was untimely filed and must be rejected. 
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.S(a)(l)(ii). 
The matter will therefore 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 rej ected.