dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal ptlvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE OCT 06 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvice~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetls 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. § IIS3(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 you, 
}perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will reject the 
appeal as untimel y 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 May 12, 2010. 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. 
Counsel dated the Form 1-290B Notice of Appeal June 10, 2010. The service center did not receive 
the appeal until June 16, 20 I 0, or 35 days after the director issued the decision. Even then, the 
director rejected the appeal on June 22, 2010 because the appeal form and payment lacked the 
required signatures. Therefore, the initial appeal submission was not properly filed. The petitioner 
resubmitted the appeal and the service center received it on July 9, 2010, 58 after the date of the 
director's decision. 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. 
Bccause the appeal was untimely filed, the AAO must reject the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.