dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
identifying Qta deleted to 
 and Immigration 
prevent clearly unwananted 
invasion of personal privac) 
I 
PUBLIC COPY 
MAR 3 0 ?m7 
FILE: EAC 05 221 52708 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 
EAC 05 22 1 52708 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
6 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I) as untimely filed. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, 
the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on September 9, 2005. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner dated the appeal 
September 29,2005, and initially sought to file it on October 3,2005. The appeal, however, was not accepted for 
filing by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) because the petitioner failed to submit the appropriate filing 
fee with the appeal. The petitioner then resubmitted the appeal with the correct filing fee and the appeal was 
accepted for filing on October 17, 2005, 38 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. 5 103.5(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.