dismissed EB-3 Case: Unknown

iden- data deleted to 
prevent dearfy unwarranted 
ivvasinn of wrsonal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration . 
Services 6 8) .A 6 
FILE: WAC 04 005 50784 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY c! 2 20116 
IN RE: 
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. 
 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, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 005 50784 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely 
filed. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 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 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 7, 
2004, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) received the appeal on December 16, 34 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 MO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.