dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

identifvl~fi:: b2t" deleted W 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUh 1 0 20Q5 
SRC 03 104 51836 
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. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
J 
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 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 April 12, 2004. The director properly gave notice 
to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file the appeal. Although the petitioner dated the appeal May 12,2004, 
the director received it on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, 36 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 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director erroneously annotated the appeal as timely and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.