dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 1 1 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of E'\ceptional Ability ~ursuant to Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality 1;\ct, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please finci the decision of the Administrative ApJJeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office 
that' 6riginally. decid~d your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must·be made to that office. 
I 
Thankyou, . 
Ron Rosenberg 
I 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office ' . 
I" 
I 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which 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 submit 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. § 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of submission, but the 
date of actual receipt with the required fee. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on July 13, 2011. It is noted 
that the service center direCtor properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 30 days to file the 
appeal, as the denial was sent via facsimile. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the 
AAO authority to extend this time limit. 
Although counsel dated the Form I-290B August 10, 2011, it was not received by the service center 
until August 15, 2011, or 33 days afterthe decision was issued. 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~ :m this case the Director of the 
Texas Service Center. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(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.