dismissed EB-3 Case: Healthcare

'd-ifjfing dPta deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranw 
invasion of privry 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(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. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 086 54169 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before the 
AAO on a motion to reconsider. The motion will be rejected as untimely. 
The petitioner, a board and care facility, sought to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
lead staff person. As required by statute, the petition was accompanied by an individual labor certification 
approved by the Department of Labor. 
On September 29, 2003, the director denied the petition, determining that the petitioner had not established that it 
had the continuing financial ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage as of the priority date of the visa 
petition. 
The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal on March 16,2005. 
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted a motion to reconsider the AAO's decision of March 16,2005. Pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(3), a motion to reconsider must offer the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by 
pertinent legal authority showing that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or CIS policy. It 
must also demonstrate that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence contained in the record at the time of 
the initial decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i) further provides in pertinent part: 
Any motion to reconsider an action by the Service filed by an applicant or petitioner must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider. 
In this case, record shows that the any motion to reconsider this matter should have been filed by April 18,2005, 
or the first regular business day following the deadline. (including three days for mailing). It was filed on May 3, 
2005. 
As the motion was filed well beyond the time permitted by regulation, it must be rejected as untimely. 
Accordingly, the petitioner's motion to reconsider is rejected as untimely filed. 
ORDER: 
 The petitioner's motion to reconsider is rejected.