dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
PUBLIC COW and Immigration 
idsnrifybgdsts&igbdto- 
prevent dsrty unanmnted 
invwicm of personal privacy 
File: SRC 05 183 50532 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: KC 1 3 2006 
IN RE: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 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. 
P. ~iemann,&hief 
Appeals Office 
SRC 05 183 50532 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Texas 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 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.%(b). In aceordance with 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) office shall be 
stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, executed, and accompanied by the 
correct fee. For calculating the date of filing, the appeal shall be regarded properly filed on the date that it 
is so stamped by the service center or district office. 
- 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision via facsimile on October 3,2005 in accordance with 
counsel and the petitioner's preferred form of communication indicated on the Form 1-907, Request for 
Premium Processing Service. It is noted that, as the denial was served via fax and not by mail, the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 30 days to file the appeal. According to the date stamp on the 
Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, it was received by CIS on Manday, November 7, 2005, or 35 days after the 
decision was issued.' Accordingly, the appeal was untimely fded.* 
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 by 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, it must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
I 
 Although the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal was initially filed with the service center on Friday, October 
28,2005, it was properly rejected due to the failure by counsel to sign the form. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(a)(7)(i). As 
rejected applications and petitions have not been properly receive& they do not retain filing dates. Id. Thus, 
as the appeal in this matter was properly rejected and as there appears to have been no apparent delay by the 
service center in rejecting the appeal, it will not be considered timely filed until it was resubmitted by counsel 
in November 2005. 
It is noted for the record that the tracking results for the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal indicate that it was 
received by the service center on Friday, November 4, 2005, or 32 days after the decision was issued. 
Therefore, the appeal was untimely filed irregardless of this error in the actual receipt date.