dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clca~ly mnvvm 
invasion of personal privacy 
PmLrc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 NUV 1 3 ZOQ6 
EAC 04 142 52272 
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. 
 1153(b)(2) 
IN 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. 
2obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) 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. fj 103.5a(b). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(a)(7) indicates that an application or petition is not properly filed until 
received with the required filing fee. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on September 13, 2005. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that he had 33 days to file the appeal. The appeal was received by 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) with fee on November 23,2005, or 71 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 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. 
Moreover, on appeal, the petitioner merely stated that he would submit a brief andor evidence to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. As of this date, nearly one year later, the MO has 
received nothing further. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v), provides that an appeal shall be summarily 
dismissed if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal. The petitioner here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not 
provided any additional evidence. He has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. Thus, 
even if the appeal were considered timely, it would be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.