dismissed EB-2 Case: Not Specified

1deauQhlg data deleted to 
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccurity 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 232 53264 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC i 6 2U05 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 232 53264 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant 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. $ 103,3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of afier service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5a(b). The date of filing is not the date of 
mailing, but the date of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on March 10, 2005. The director properly gave 
notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Counsel dated the appeal April 1 1, 2005, 32 days 
after the issuance of the denial. The director received the appeal notice on April 13, 2005, 34 days after the 
decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 !03.3(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. 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director erroneously annotated the appeal as timely and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected