dismissed EB-3 Case: Manufacturing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 095 51266 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 5 2006 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Other, Unskilled Worker Pursuant to 
$ 203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(3) 
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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 095 5 1266 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely 
filed. 
The petitioner's business is manufacturing, repairing and selling of booth tables, etc.. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary permanently in the United States as an installer. As required by statute, the petition is 
accompanied by a Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Certification, approved by the U. S. 
Department of Labor. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had the 
continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition. 
The director denied the petition accordingly. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 9 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on November 12, 2004. The director properly gave 
notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal December 10, 
2004, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) received the appeal on December 16, 2004, 34 days after 
the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 4 103.5(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. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.