dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

. ,. ..;':.
identifyingdatadeletedto
•prev~nt clearly.unwarranted
mvaSlOnofpersonalJ?rivacy
PUBLtccOPY
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.,Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u~s. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services .
SRC 06 001 52799
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date:, .~ MAR 062007.
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant P~tition 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:
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returnedto
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
~~~obert P. Wiemann, Chief '.
Administrative. Appeals Office
. ',,--
www.uscis.gov
j
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 appeal will be
rejected as untimely filed..
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at Sc.P.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the
affected party must file the complete appeal within 30 days after ser.viceof the unfavorable decision.
If the decision was mailed, the appealmust be filed within 33 days. See S c.P.R. § 103.5a(b).
4 '. •
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on October 22, 2005. It is noted that the
director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The regulation at
S c.P.R. § 103.2(a)(2) requires that an application.or.petition be signed. The regulation at 8 c.P.R.
§ 103.2(a)(7) provides that an application or petition shall be regarded as properly filed as of the
receipt date "if it is properly signed and executed." Although counsel dated the appeal November
21, 2005, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) properly signed on
December 1, 2005, or 40 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely
filed. . .
The regulation at S c.P.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 ofthe 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 S C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion and
forwarded the matter to theAAO. 1 .
.As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected.
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.
I The petitioner also filed a motion to reopen with the director that remains unadjudicated at this time.