remanded EB-3 Case: Jewelry Manufacturing

identitying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwatranted 
invasion of personal pfivac) 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: 
AUG 1 7' 2007 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 02 220 5 160 1 
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. tj 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 ofice. 
0 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center revoked approval of the instant preference visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
rejected as untimely filed. The AAO will return the matter to the director for consideration as a motion to 
reconsider. 
The petitioner is a jewelry manufacturer. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States 
as a model maker. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750 Application for Alien Employment Certification 
approved by the Department of Labor accompanied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner 
had not established that the beneficiary has the requisite experience as stated on the labor certification petition and 
revoked approval of the visa petition accordingly. 
In order to properly file an appeal from a revoked petition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2(d) provides that 
the affected party must file the complete appeal within 15 days after service of the unfavorable decision. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision of revocation on September 28, 2005. The director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 15 days to file the appeal. The appeal was received by 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on October 24, 2005, 26 days after the decision was issued. 
Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 15-day time limit for 
filing an appeal. As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. Nevertheless, 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. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the 
reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or CIS policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an 
application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 
 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the untimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 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). Therefore, the director must consider the untimely appeal as a 
motion to reconsider and render a new decision accordingly. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected. The matter is returned to the director for consideration as a motion to 
reconsider.