dismissed
EB-3
dismissed EB-3 Case: Skilled Worker/Professional
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed. The director's decision was issued on March 23, 2005, but the appeal was not received until May 6, 2005, 44 days later, which is beyond the 33-day deadline for mailed decisions.
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
adentiffing data deleted to prevent &arty unwarmted bvadm d pemd privacy PUBLIC COPY U.S. Department of fIomeland Security 20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. 3000 Washington, DC 20529 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Bb 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. ยง 1 1 53(b)(3) IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 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. mu obert 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. 5 103.5a(b). The record indicates that the director issued the decision on March 23, 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 April 22, 2005, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on May 6, 2005, or 44 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 AAO. As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. ORDER: The appeal is rejected.
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.