dismissed O-1A

dismissed O-1A Case: Unknown

📅 Jul 20, 2005 👤 Individual 📂 Unknown

Decision Summary

The appeal was rejected as untimely filed. The petitioner's appeal was received 35 days after the decision was issued, which is beyond the 33-day deadline for mailed decisions. The director also declined to treat the late appeal as a motion, leading the AAO to reject it.

Criteria Discussed

Timely Filing Of Appeal

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
 . 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section lOI(a)(I 5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Director denied the preference 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. 3 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of after service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on July 20, 2005. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner's appeal was 
received by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on August 24, 2005, or 35 days after the decision 
was issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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. tj 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. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.