dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
p3rgtic COW
l'.s. Deparimemof HomelamlSecurity
I .N.Lili/enship m1dlmmiprmion Nervices
\Jmine..tr£he .\ppeals(Wke ( \ \o
20 \1awchu-.em \ ve . N \\ . \1 2091i
IYì l111.'lLHl. Í M.
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATI: Ohice: TilAS SERVlCFCl NTER fil.E:
IN RE: Petitioner:
lleneficiarv:
PETITI()N: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasa Memberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(h)(2) of the Immigration
andNationalityAct, 8 I LS.C.§ l 153(hK2)
ONBEllAll 01 PFllll()NFR:
INSTRl:CI lONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of thedocuments
related to this ma1terha\e been returned to the office thal originally decided your case. Pleasehe ad\ ised that
any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thal office.
Ihank\ou
PerryRheiv
Chief. Administrat ve Appeals Ouice
www.uses.gov
Page2
DISCCSSION: The Director. TexasServiceCenter.deniedthe immigrant visa petition. Thematter
is now beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOhice (AAO) on appeal. Theappealwill berejectedas
untimely Illed.
In order to properly file an appeal the regulation at 8 C.F.lt § 103.3(aH2)(i) provides that the
affected party or the attorney or representativeof record must lile the complete appeal within 30
days of service of the untiñorable decision. If the decision was mailed. the appealmust be liled
within 33 days. See8 C ] .R. ß 103.5a(b).Thedateof tiling is notthedateof mailing,but thedate
of actual receipl. See8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7Hi).
The record indicatesthat the servicecenterdirector issuedthe decision on December14.2010. It is
notedthat the servicecenterdirector properly gavenotice to the petitioner that it had33 daysto file
theappeal. Neitherthe Act nor the pertinentregulationsgrant the AAO authority to extendthis time
limit.
Althoughcounseldatedthe FormI-29013January11..2011.theservicecenterdid notreceiveit until
January 19. 2011, or 36 days after the director issuedthe decision.' Accordingly. the appealwas
untimelv liled.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2Hvkil)(2) states that if an untimely appeal meets the
requirements01a motion to reopenor a motion to reconsider.the appealmust be treatedasa motion.
and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. The ohicial having jurisdiction over a
motion is the ohicial who madethe last decision in the proceeding.in this casethe Director of the
TexasServiceCenter. See8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(aH1Hii). Thedirectordeterminedthatthe lateappeal
did not meetthe requirementsof a motion and forwardedthe matterto the AAO.
Astheappealwasuntimelyfiled. theappealmustherejected.
ORDER: Theappealis rejected.
TheAAO notesthatthepetitionerinitially incorrectlysubmittedtheappealdirectlyto theAM) on
January 13, 2011. The instructions on the director's decision stated that appealsmust be filed
directly with the TexasServiceCenter. The petitioner re-submilled the appealto the TexasService
Centeron .lanuary19,2011.