dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date:
identifyingdata deletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
Invasionof personalprivacy
;PUBLIC COpy
File:
SRC 06 095 50620
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
MAR 062007
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. § 11 53(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.
~\RL~- ~L\..t~'U
5RobertP. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
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 July 7, 2006. It is noted that the director properly
gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although the petitioner dated the appeal
August 7, 2006, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on August 10, 2006, or 34
days after the decision was issued. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to
extend the 33-day time limit for filing an appeal. See Matter ofLiadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006). Even if
the appeal was delayed by the overnight delivery service, the error would not warrant special consideration of the
appeal. Id. 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 service center director. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(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.
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.