dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
t@mtfmg dab ddekdeb U.S. Citizenship 
t clearly unwm and Immigration 
of personal prbvac~ 
p~L1C COPY 'h \ 
File: SRC 04 165 5 1 100 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SFP 0 8 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 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. 
.--- -- -.-- 
/ '-' 
-72 
ROEd P. WlemAef 
Administratwe Appeals Office 
SRC 04 165 51100 
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. 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. 5 103.5a(b). In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(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 served the decision via facsimile transmission on August 20, 2003 with 
a courtesy copy sent by mail. According to the date stamp on the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, it was 
received by CIS on Tuesday, September 21, 2004, or 32 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the 
appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ?j 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. 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, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.