dismissed L-1B Case: Education

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear~y unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 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. 
---/I-+ 
~obd~iemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 800 0 1964 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the California Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(Z)(v)(B)(I). 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as a teacher having 
specialized knowledge as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation 
organized under the laws of the State of California and is a school. The director denied the petition 
concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be performing services involving 
specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $j 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the complete appeal within 30 days after 
service of the decision, or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was served by 
mail. The record indicates that the decision of the director was faxed to and received by counsel to the petitioner 
on Friday, October 22,2005. The director used the fax number provided by counsel to the petitioner in the Form 
1-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, and which was identified as her preferred form of 
communication. Counsel to the petitioner filed an appeal with the California Service Center on Tuesday, 
November 23,2004,32 days afier the decision was served upon counsel to the petitioner by fax. 
Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 
103.3(a)(2>(v)(B)(I>. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(Z)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.5(a)(3), 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. 8 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.