remanded EB-1C Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prev~nt clearly UI1Warrante(i 
mvaslOn of personal privaCl 
f'UBLlC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
NOV 2 8 201' 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. J)epartment of Homeland Securit) 
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 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(I)(C) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Oftice in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that oftice. 
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. 
In order to properly flIe 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 iN'i!.:.:. :0e appeal must be flied within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5a(b). The date of tiling 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 director issued the decision on June 30, 2009. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The appeal was received by the 
service center on August 4, 2009, or 35 days after the decision was issued. Therefore, the appeal was 
untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(8)(I) states that an appeal which is not flied within the time 
allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. f.('c(wdingly, the appeal in the instant case will be rejected as 
untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(8)(2) states that, ifan untimely appeal meets the requirements ofa 
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)(I)(ii). 
Here, as the brief in this matter was submitted directly to the AAO in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.3(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 Old::: .... a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. Based on 
a preliminary review of the record, it appears that the information submitted on appeal merits further 
consideration. Therefore, the matter will be returned to the director, who may grant the motion and issue a 
new decision. 
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 rejected.