dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarran tea 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
invasion of personal privacy 
FILE: WAC 05 02 1 5 1770 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 I 101 (a)(l S)(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 
WAC 05 021 5 1770 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) 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. 8 103.5aP). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on October 17, 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 
November 12,2005, and initially sought to file it on November 10,2005. 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 initial appeal. The petitioner then resubmitted the appeal with the correct filing fee and the 
appeal was accepted for filing on November 28, 2005, 42 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. 8 103.5(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.