dismissed
EB-3
dismissed EB-3 Case: Nursing
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected as improperly filed because it was not submitted within the allowed timeframe. The director issued the notice of decision on October 12, 2004, and the appeal was received on November 22, 2004, more than 33 days later.
Criteria Discussed
Timely Filing Of Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
p -' ':V; Identifying data:deletedto IlJrevent dearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy .' PUBLICCOPV U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Mass, Rm. A3042, 425 I Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services FILE: WAC 03 268 54156 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MARΒ· 09 2006 IN RE: . Petitioner: . Beneficiary: . PETITION: Petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional Pursuant to Section203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 V.S.c. Β§ 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. Wiemann, Director Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov \ Β· ,'-. , Ii -::) WAC 0326854156 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. The petitioner is a hospital. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a registered nurs'e. As required by statute, two copies of the Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Certification, not certified by the Department of Labor, accompanies the petition. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the proffered position qualifies for Schedule A certification. The director denied the petition accordingly. The director denied the petition in a nqtice of decision (NOD) dated October 12, 2004. Under 8 C.F.R. Β§ 103.3(a)(2)(i), the time for appeal is 30 days from the service of the NOD. An additional three (3) days are allowed for the service by mail herein, 8 C.F.R. Β§ 103.5a(b). , , Despite having issued the NOP on October 12, 2004, the director received the appeal more than 33 days afterWards, on November 22, 2004'} ," , , Provisions of 8 C.F.R. Β§ 103.3(a)(2)(v) state, with reference to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), formerly the Service or the INS: ' Untimely appeal~- (1) Rejection without refund offiling fee. An appeal which is not filed in the time ~llowed must be rejected as improperly filed. In such a case, any filing fee [CIS] has accepted will not be refunded. ' The petitioner did not file the appeal within the time allowed, and it must be rejected as an improperly filed appeal. ' ORDER: The appeal is rejected. I Counsel had to resubmitthe Form 1-290B after submitting it to the director unsigned on November 12, 2004.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.