dismissed L-1A Case: Timeshare Services

U.S. Department nf Ilomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Rm. A3042 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
ineof- 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 165 50686 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: mc 2 2 .I(tUt 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L) 
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 office. 
Robert ~~~imann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 165 50686 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAQ) on appeal. The appeal will be 
rejected as untimely filed. 
The petitioner states that it a servicing company for vacation ownership resorts specializing in timeshare 
purchasing. It seeks employ the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to 
(j 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 101 (a)( 15)(L). The director denied 
the petition based on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to conclusively establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
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 aAer 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 via facsimile on August 27, 2004. It is noted 
that the director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 30 days to file the appeal (33 if the 
decision was mailed). The appeal was received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on 
Thursday, September 30, 2004, 34 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was 
untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 
4 103.5(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.