dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

Identifying data ddeted to 
prevent clearly UR- 
ia-of-phacs 
PUBLIC copy 
U.S. Department of Homelarid Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 04 156 52885 
SEP 3 0 200S 
Petition: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Adkanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 153(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. 
bb&+hy-. 
7~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days 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 record indicates that the director issued the decision on May 2,2005. It is noted that the director properly 
gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(a)(2) 
requires that an application or petition be signed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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 May 26,2005, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) properly signed on June 9, 2005, or 38 days after the 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 rnade the 
last decision in the proceeding, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(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.