dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

identfjling data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwmanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC, cQP,Y 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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. 
t;- - 
C. %-./ 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 185 50169 
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 decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5a(b). In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a 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 October 8, 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 November 12, 2004, or 35 days after the decision 
was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
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 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. 9 103.5(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.