dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
... 
SRC 05 149 
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. 3 1 153(b)(2) 
IN 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. 
b&&uaw 
Pobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 after 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 record indicates that the director issued the decision on September 29, 2005. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the 
appeal November 2, 2005, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on November 7, 
2005, or 39 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
An adhesive note on the appeal requests that it be considered timely due to counsel's office closure due to 
Hurricane Wilma. 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 service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 
8 103.5(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. 
Moreover, on appeal, counsel merely stated that he would submit a brief and/or evidence to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. As stated above, counsel dated the appeal November 2, 2005. As of this 
date, more than one year later, the AAO has received nothing further. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v), 
provides that an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Counsel here has not specifically addressed the 
reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence. He has not even expressed disagreement 
with the director's decision. Thus, even if the appeal were considered timely, it would be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.