dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of penonal privacy 
PlffiLICCOPY 
DATE: SEP 12 20110ffice : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
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 
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. § 1153(b )(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank(ft.0u, , . 
. A..",." t1?.-_ 
. cr-- £,).r-
~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 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. § 103.5a(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 December 14, 2010. 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 counsel dated the Form I-290B January 11,2011, the service center did not receive it until 
January 19, 2011, or 36 days after the director issued the decision. l Accordingly, the appeal was 
untimely filed. 
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. § 103.5(a)(I)(ii). The director determined that the late appeal 
did not meet the requirements of 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. 
1 The AAO notes that the petitioner initially incorrectly submitted the appeal directly to the AAO on 
January 13, 2011. The instructions on the director's decision stated that appeals must be filed 
directly with the Texas Service Center. The petitioner re-submitted the appeal to the Texas Service 
Center on January 19,2011.