dismissed EB-3 Case: Skilled Worker

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of persod privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
0/4' 
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. 3 1 153(b)(3) 
IN 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 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 3 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on May 3, 2005. It is noted that the director properly 
gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal June 3, 
2005, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on June 21, 2005, or 49 days after the 
decision was issued.' Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to 
treat the late appeal as a motion and forwarded the matter to the MO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
I 
 The record of proceeding indicates that the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, was initially filed with the 
service center on June 7,2005 and returned by the director without a priority or processing date assigned 
because the petitioner failed to attach a copy of the director's decision. On June 7,2005, the initial filing was 
also late as 37 days had passed since the issuance of the director's decision.