dismissed L-1A

dismissed L-1A Case: Not Specified

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Not Specified

Decision Summary

The appeal was rejected as untimely filed. The decision was mailed on December 30, 2003, but the appeal was received on February 4, 2004, which was 36 days later, exceeding the 33-day filing deadline. The director also declined to treat the late appeal as a motion to reopen or reconsider.

Criteria Discussed

Timely Filing Of Appeal

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of ,fIomelnnd Security 
20 Mass. Rm. A3042, 425 1 Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20529 
File: WAC 03 197 50093 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 1 20M 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 197 50093 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. 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. 5 103.3(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. 9 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on December 30, 2003. 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 
February 1, 2004, it was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on February 4, 2004, or 36 
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. tj 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. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.