dismissed EB-3 Case: Healthcare

kkdfjhgdata &id bo 
prevent clesIy unw-ted 
invasion of pnsrmal priwy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
3~ 
FILE: LIN 01 172 51517 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Shlled Worker or Professional Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(3) 
ON 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. ~Gmann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 01 172 51517 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. On firther review of the record, the director determined that the beneficiary was not 
eligble for the benefit sought. The director served the petitioner with notice of intent to revoke the approval of 
the preference visa petition. The director subsequently revoked approval of the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner is a health care services firm. It sought to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States 
as a licensed practical nurse. 
The record indicates that the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (1-140) was initially approved on June 6,2001. 
The director subsequently concluded that the 1-140 was approved in error and notified the petitioner of his intent 
to revoke the petition on January 24, 2003. The petitioner's response failed to convince the director to revise his 
decision and the petition's approval was revoked on April 10,2003, pursuant to section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1155.' 
The petitioner filed an appeal. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 205.2(d) provides that a petitioner "may appeal the 
decision to revoke the approval within 15 days after the service of notice of the revocation." Three additional 
days are provided if the notification of revocation was mailed. If the last day of the designated period falls on a 
Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, the period will run until the end of the next day, which is not a Saturday, 
Sunday, or legal holiday. See 8 C.F.R. $ 1 .l(h). 
In this case, 18 days from the date of the director's decision to revoke the petition's approval fell on Monday, 
April 28, 2003. Therefore, the appeal was due Monday, April 28, 2003. 
 The record shows that it was not 
received until May 5, 2003. Although the information contained on the cover page of the director's revocation 
decision erroneously stated the appellate time as a 30-day period, it remains the petitioner's burden to file a timely 
appeal. An untimely appeal shall be rejected as improperly filed. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 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. 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion and forwarded the matter to the MO. 
Accordingly, the petitioner's appeal is rejected as untimely filed. 
ORDER: 
 The petitioner's appeal is rejected. 
Electronic records indicate that the alien is the beneficiary of another employment-based immigrant petition filed by the 
petitioner, which was approved on January 12,2004 (LIN 03 232 50567).