dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

L3 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
. 'A 20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
k, 
 Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. citizenship data*deleted to - and Immigration 
mvent 
 un Wmated 
invwj~n ofper~ond privac) 
~PWIC COPY 
MAY 0 4 2007 
File: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 05 236 52591 
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. $ 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
* 
*' 
- 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the immigrant 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. !ij 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. 
 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on May 31, 2006. It is noted that the 
director properly gave notice to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file the appeal. Although the 
petitioner dated the appeal June 22, 2006, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) on Thursday, July 6, 2006, or 36 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal 
was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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. !ij 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.