dismissed EB-3 Case: Unknown

Uv. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Date: 
,:la1 pursuant 
203(b)(3) {sf the Irnrriigrafiun and .Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 153jb)(3) 
?-his is the decision ofthe ,~ldrnii~istr.at!ire Appeals Office in your case. AIi ~LPCL~:'T~C~I~S have bee11 retur-fled to 
the oirice that t.rriginal8y decided your case. rAiriy further inquirg, rnrrst be made ru that office. 
 robe:^ P. Wfe~~awl. C.:hief 
Admil- strit; ,4{3]3eals Office 
XBXSCBISSION: Tile Director, Vermotrt Service Center, defiied fhc' immig-rant visa petition on August 11. 
2004. The petitioner appealed the directi?s's decision. 'b'he director dismissed the hfotion co 
lteopen!'Reco,zsic~r'r~ as ~t, was rmt slilmitted witiiin 33 days of the date of ihe director's decision dakd August 
I I, 2004. The matter is now bef'ctre the Admii:!stsative i'.ppeals Crilke (ALZC)) on appeals. T11.e prior decismn 
ofthe ifirector dated Augiis? 1 1,2004, is aikned. The appeals are rqjected. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at li: C.F.R. tj i03..3(aj(?)(i) provides that the agected party 
nzust iiie the compicte appeal within 30 days i?i'after sei-vice of the unhivol-able decisisj-r. Tffhe decision was 
txai'ied, the appeal must be filed within 33 dzys. Se:3 8 C.F.M. 4 1133.5a(b). 
'X'I-re record indicaies t1zat -the d-irecior issued the decision on August 11, 2004. The director properly gave 
notice to the petitiorrer that ;I had 33 days to file the appeal. Goutlsel submitted documents to the dirc~t~r OM 
Septen-tbes 10, 2004. hi:hc)ugh xhc cover !eiTer indicated tiiai a Form 1-290B was included wit11 an aff'fidavii 
.from the petitioner itrld a letter fiorr: an accountant, no Fujm 1-290B ivas inchidcd. 'ii'he director returned the 
documents and filling fee nnd stated, "If you vjrsh the attached letter be cisnsidered ns ynizr h4olio1-t to 
reopen/Mecorrsicier piease aanotate tf-re letter, or a statement tl-tat courrsel desired that the docr~nzenl submittal 
be considered as a Motion to Keaper~Recor?,sider," Subsequently counsel by letter dated Septeinher 23, 2004, 
mil received 4x1 that date, sent docun:.ents with an unsigned Form I-290B t~sv dated Sepcenlber [no day date 
given] 21904 and wli'rl a cover letter indicat'i~g thai ti-re subtrl:8a1 be consrclered as a Mcstion to 
Meopen!'Keconsider. 
Citi;.enshlp and Immigration Services (CIS) receivrd the niutio1-r to reopen on Seyten-her 23. 2004, G dzys 
afier the decisiorr was issuesl. Accordingly, it was unt~rtlely Cilelt. 
Subsequently co~inssj filed t:.vi> Motions to FE-zopei; the direcior's decisior: dated A~~ugust I 1, 2004 as recervecl 
I)., ccernber .. 14,2004, r,nd April 22, 3005. 'The iast appeal was received 255 dnys after the decisiori was issued. 
Hot11 appeals ivere iaztimely filed. 
The regu1;rtiol-t at 8 C.F.K. 
 103.3(a)(2)(v)(Bi(L) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the req~iiren~ents oFa 
rnatiol-i to reupen or 3 .motion to reconsider, the appeal inust be treated as a 1-notion: arid n decision Exist be 
rnacie on the merits of the case. The oft-;cia1 hav~ng jurisdiction over a motion is the official whra made the 
last dec~sion in the prcjceedi~~g, in this case the sexvice center director. See X C.F.R. 6 IOi.S(a){l)(ii). '?'he 
director declined to treai the iaie appeal as a n:otion and fbrvjarded tile matler to tile A.40. 
.As the zp-ppeals :vcre urztinic?:y filed, the appeals must be rejected. 
ORDER: 7-he appealsre rejected.