dismissed EB-3

dismissed EB-3 Case: Nursing

πŸ“… Date unknown πŸ‘€ Organization πŸ“‚ 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

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.
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.