dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Dcpartrncnt of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
tdentifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw- 
~n-ol- 
PUBLIC copy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 03 035 50962 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: a& ig,,. 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Cj 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
rnSTRUCTIONS : 
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. &&ann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 035 50962 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 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. 6 103.5a(b). In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in an office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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 fling, the appeal shall be regarded as properly filed on the date 
that it is so stamped by the service center or distnct office. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on November 22, 2004. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. According to the date stamp on the 
Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, it was received by CIS on January 19,2005, or 58 days after the decision was 
issued.' Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(aj(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. 
I It is noted that initially, the appeal was improperly submitted to the AAO rather than to the California 
Service Center, as the director instructed. The AAO returned the appeal and the petitioner resubmitted the 
appeal to the service center. Regardless of the additional delay, the appeal was late in the first instance, as the 
date stamp indicated that it was received by the AAO on December 29, 2004, or 37 days after the decision 
was issued.