dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

adentifling data delem b 
dearly 'j- bvlldon ofpemnal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
@ U. and S. citizensp Immigr tion 
%4,, ,a Services 
File: WAC 04 145 50895 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: I 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the I migration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 l(a)(15)(L) m 
IN. BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have b 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 145 50895 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimrnigrant visa petitic 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejecl 
filed. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that tht 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If thl 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. (j 103.5a(b). In accordance 
103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 
stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, executed, and acco 
correct fee. For calculating the date of filing, the appeal shall be regarded as properly filed on 
is so stamped by the service center or district office. 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on Wednesday, July 28, 2004. It i: 
director gave notice to the petitioner that it had 30 days to file the appeal, or 33 days if the appl 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision via facsimile on July 28, 2004 with 2 
sent by mail. Therefore, as the denial was served via fax and not by mail, the appeal was 
August 27,2004, or 30 days after the decision was faxed to the petitioner. According to the da 
Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, it was received by CIS on Monday, August 30, 2004, or 3: 
decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(Z) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the re1 
motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a dc 
made on the merits of the case. The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official 
last decision in the proceeding, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 
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 matter 
d as untimely 
affected party 
decision was 
with 8 C.F.R. 
ffice shall be 
ipanied by the 
:he date that it 
noted that the 
11 was mailed. 
courtesy copy 
.ue on Friday, 
: stamp on the 
days after the 
uirements of a 
:ision must be 
who made the 
a)(l)(ii). The