dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Room 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
ldentifying data deletea ttr 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacr 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 1 2006 
SRC 05 257 51369 
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. $ 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the ~drninistrative Appeals Office in your cask. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
wbert P. Wies, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based 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. 9 103.3(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 record indicates that the director issued the decision on October 14, 2005. 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 Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on November 23, 2005, or 40 days after the 
decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
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, 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.