dismissed EB-3

dismissed EB-3 Case: Unknown

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Unknown

Decision Summary

The appeal was dismissed because it was untimely filed. The appeal was received by CIS 35 days after the director's decision was issued, exceeding the 33-day period allowed for an appeal of a mailed decision.

Criteria Discussed

Timeliness Of Appeal

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
PUBLIC Copy 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent dmdy unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 05 002 5 1 142 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 me: I#'!? 0 9 zma 
203(b)(3) if the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 002 5 1 142 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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. 9 103.3(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. 9 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on August 16, 2005. The director properly gave 
notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal September 15, 
2005, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) received the appeal on September 19, 2005, 35 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. 8 103.5(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. 
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.