dismissed L-1A Case: Not Specified

identifying data to 
prevent clearly unwa~anted 
invasion of ~bl P~V~Y 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 04 226 51453 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 5 2006 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 226 51453 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the California Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as 
untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the complete appeal within 30 days after 
service of the decision or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was served by 
mail. The record indicates that the decision of the director was mailed to counsel of record for the petitioner on 
March 17, 2005. Counsel for the petitioner filed an appeal with the Texas Service Center on April 20,2005, 34 
days after the decision was mailed. Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. 5 1 03.3(a)(2)(v)(~)(l).' 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.5(a)(3), 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. 
1 Counsel for the petitioner asserts on appeal that the decision of the director was mailed on March 21, 2005, 
not on March 17, 2005. No corroborating evidence was submitted to support counsel's assertions. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980).