dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

~dentifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
'nvasion of wrsooal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 04 197 50567 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 3 ct ?~n) 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
Ro 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 197 50567 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. 9 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the declsion was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5a(b). In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a 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 as 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 on July 21, 2004. It is noted that the director 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 August 24, 2004, or 34 days after the decision was issued. 
Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
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 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 proceedmg, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. $ 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 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision via facsimile on July 21, 2004. It is noted that, as 
the denial was served via fax and not by mail, the director should have only given notice to the petitioner that 
it had 30 days, not 33 days, to file the appeal.