dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services r; 
FILE: 
IN RE: 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEf 3 7 2005 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: fi 
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 1 53(b)(2) 
ON 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. 
'.> C2Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Ofice 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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. 5 103.3(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. 5 103.5a(b). The date of filing is not the date of 
mailing, but the date of actual receipt. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on December 22, 2004. The director properly gave 
notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Counsel dated the appeal January 14, 2005. The 
director originally received the I-290B appeal form on January 18,2005. The form, however, was not signed, 
and therefore, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i), the appeal was not properly filed. The director therefore 
rejected the appeal and returned the form and accompanying fee. Counsel signed the Form I-290B and 
remailed the appeal on January 25,2005. The director received the appeal the next day, January 26,2005,35 
days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 off~cial 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)(l)(ii). 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.