dismissed EB-3 Case: Unknown

denme dab dekteb w 
,*vent clearly anwarn* 
. of wrsonal pdvw 
invade 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 1 16 50522 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEp 1 3 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 5 1 153(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 1 16 50522 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant 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. 8 103.5a(b). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 I. 1 (h) states: 
The term day when computing the period of time for taking any action provided in this 
chapter including the taking of an appeal, shall include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
holidays, except that when the last day of the period so computed falls on a Saturday, Sunday 
or a legal holiday, the period shall run until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, 
Sunday, nor a legal holiday. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on February 15, 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 
March 14, 2005, it was received by CIS on March 22, 2005, a Tuesday, or 35 days after the decision was 
issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
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. 9 103.5(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.