dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. qcpartment of Homeland Security 
20 ~4s~. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
washington. DC 20529 
I 
FILE: m Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENT R Date: 
WAC 04 246 50308 
I 
SEp 2 8 2095 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professi Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ae\s*J~$4irm m 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All docum have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to 
,-. T 6 ' ?",!ed ad 
%Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
, 1. ,, '"prrm-lte:; 
SELF-REPRESENTED ., .n.gf IF~~~W~CY . @*$I dl-$? . ' 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-b immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal be rejected as untimely 
filed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the n and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the business. The petitioner 
seeks employment at Bridge Publications, the publishing arm of the International. The 
petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job certification, is in 
the national interest of the United States. The director found that in the sciences, 
arts, or business, and therefore cannot qualify for 
sciences, arts, or business. The director also found 
from the requirement of a job offer would be in the 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(i) pro ides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of after service of the unfavorable d cision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b). The 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 March 30, 2005. he director properly gave 
notice to the petitioner that she had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner that the decision was 
"dated March 30, 2005 [but] served on April 7, 2005." The petitioner no proof (such as a 
postmarked envelope) to indicate that the director's decision went out later 2005. Service of a 
decision is complete upon mailing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b). Therefore, evidence to the 
contrary, we consider the decision to have been served on March 30, 
tolled 33 days later (Monday, May 2, 2005). The petitioner dated 
accompanying cover letter May 3, 2005. The shipping label for the 
May 4, 2005. The director received the appeal the next day, May 
issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
We note that, even if the appeal had been timely filed, it would have been arily dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[aln officer to whom an appeal is all summarily dismiss any 
appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal." 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on May 5, 2005, the petitioner that a brief would be 
forthcoming within thirty days. On May 3 1, 2005, the petitioner requested an 30-day extension. To 
date, over four months after the filing of the appeal, careful review of reveals no subsequent 
submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the 
The statement on the appeal form reads simply "The decision is unsupported by sta utes and regulations and is 
factually erroneous. There is nothing in the statutes or regulations which prevents his Petitioner from seeking 
this immigration benefit." This is a general statement that makes no specific all gation of error. The bare 
assertion that the statute does not support the denial is not a sufficient basis for a subst tive appeal. 
i 
Page 3 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of 1 or a statement of fact as a 
basis for the appeal, the appeal would be subject to summary dismissal had it been ti 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal 
motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a mot 
made on the merits of the case. The official having jurisdiction over a motion is 
last decision in the proceeding, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 
instance, the appeal contains no substantive content (as explained above) and 
conclude that the petitioner's untimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion 
reconsider. 
meets the requirements of a 
on, and a decision must be 
the official who made the 
5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). In this 
therefore there is no reason to 
to reopen or a motion to