dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 06 242 5 1778 
 FEB 2 5 2008 
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 1 53(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 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
1 
i:$+rt P. wie&;n, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based 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. 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 April 25,2007. The director properly gave notice 
to the petitioner that the petitioner had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner dated the appeal June 1, 
2007, 38 days after the date of the denial, but the postmark on the appeal envelope shows that the petitioner 
did not mail the appeal until June 4, 2007. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) received the appeal on 
June 8,2007, or 45 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The AAO notes that the appeal includes a copy of Form AR-11, Alien's Change of Address Card. The 
~etitioner dated this form A~ril 15. 2007. ten davs before the denial notice. The Form AR-11 indicated that 
;he petitioner had moved frdm 
 ~iushin~, New York, to 
 also in Flushing. It is not 
clear when, if at all, the petitioner mailed this change of address notice to 
 e record of proceeding does 
not contain the original Form AR-11, a 
 that the copy appears in the record is on appeal. The 
director mailed the denial notice to the Imr address that appeared on the Form 1-140 petition, but 
the petitioner obviously received the notice because the appeal includes a copy of the denial notice. 
Furthermore, CIS records indicate that the petitioner filed a Form 1-485 adjustment application (receipt 
number LIN 07 264 57154) on August 13, 2007, and that the petitioner continues to use the - 
address in connection with that application. Absent persuasive evidence that the petitioner sought to notify 
CIS of a change of address prior to the issuance of the denial notice, the AAO finds that the director did not 
err in sending the denial notice to the Elder Avenue address in April 2007. 
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 marked the appeal as untimely and forwarded the matter to the AAO, thereby declining to treat the 
untimely appeal as a motion. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.