dismissed O-1A Case: Unknown

, ' ,;,
~',
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass, N.W ., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
~~entifying data deleted to .
..!' ev~nt clearly unwarranted
'lQVasi O l1Ofj)eJJQft..,l' ..
. .... pnvacy
.PUBLICCOpy .
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: SRC 06 019 50451 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 'Date: MAR 06 2007
IN RE: Petitioner :
Beneficiary :
;;'
"
PETITION: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(l5)(O)(i) .
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :
SELF-REPRESENTED
. INSTRUCTIONS :
This is the decisionof 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. .'iemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscls.gov
SRC 06 019 50451
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center , denied the noniminigrant visa petition and 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.P.R . §' 103.3(a)(2)(i) 'provides that the
affected party must file the complete appeal within 30 days after service of the unfavorable decision.
If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.P.R: § 103.5a(b). An
, '
application or petition shall not be regarded as ,properly filed if it is not signed. See 8 C.P.R.
§§ 103.2(a)(2), 103.2(a)(7).
The director issued her decision on March 29 , 2006. On May 1, 2006, the Texas Service Center
rejected the petitioner 's Form I-290B because it was not signed. The ,petitioner properly filed a
signed Porm 1-290B on May 10, 2006, which was 42 days after the 'director's decision was issued.
'Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed .
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 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 rnust 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.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion arid
, forwarded the matter to the AAO.
The appeal' was untimely filed and consequently must be rejected.
ORDER: ,The appeal is rejected.
"