dismissed EB-3 Case: Unknown

WfLing data delsbd to 
prevemt clearly unwarranted 
invasion of persod privacy 
PUBElC COPY 
U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
bc 
Date: NOV 0 9 2006 
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. fj 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. 
.2 
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. $ 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days after service of the unfavorable decision with the office where 
the unfavorable decision was made. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on April 1, 2005. The director properly gave notice 
to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal, and that the appeal should be filed with the Texas 
Service Center. The petitioner filed the appeal improperly and sent the appeal directly to the AAO. The 
AAO returned the filing to the petitioner with instructions to file the appeal with the Texas Service Center. 
The petitioner then submitted the appeal to the Texas Service Center, and Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) initially received the appeal on May 9, 2005, or 38 days after the decision was issued. The 
Service Center then returned the appeal to the petitioner for the petitioner to submit the appeal on the revised 
1-290 Form. The petitioner resubmitted the appeal, which was received and receipted on May 20, 2005. As 
the appeal was initially submitted to the wrong office, and subsequently first received at the proper filing 
location on May 9, 2005, the appeal was untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(a)(7) (receipt date is assigned 
when filing is properly completed). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. fj 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 dismissed.