dismissed O-1B Case: Cosmetology

x 
identI4,tng dafa deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrantec 
invasion of personal privec~ 
PUBLIC CQPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfBce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 09 204 5 1967 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
APR 2 9 2010 
IN RE: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10 1 (a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 09 204 5 1967 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The petitioner filed this petition seelung to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in the arts. The petitioner, a hair salon, seeks to employ the beneficiary as a cosmetologist. The 
beneficiary was previously granted 0-1 status to work for a different employer, and the petitioner now seeks 
to amend her status and extend her stay for a period of one year. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner: (1) failed to submit a written advisory opinion 
from the appropriate consulting entity, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(2)(ii)(D); and (2) failed to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary is recognized as being prominent in her field of endeavor, pursuant to the 
evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $9 214,2(0)(3)(iv)(A) and (B). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. $ 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was 
served by mail. In accordance with 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a USCIS 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's decision was mailed to the petitioner on October 30, 2009. The AAO 
notes that, based on the date of service, the petitioner was required to file the appeal on or before December 2, 
2009. The petitioner initially attempted to file the appeal on November 30, 2009, but the appeal was returned 
to the petitioner on December 1, 2009, due to the petitioner's failure to pay the required fee of $585.00. The 
petitioner re-submitted the appeal and it was accepted and stamped by the service center as properly filed on 
January 14,2010,76 days after the director issued the adverse decision. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely 
filed. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit for 
filing an appeal. Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.5(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. tj 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
It is noted that the appeal does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider. 8 
C.F.R. 9 103.5(a). A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and 
be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider 
WAC 09 204 5 1967 
Page 3 
must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish 
that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a 
decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on 
the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the petitioner offers no "new" evidence, which could not have been presented in the initial proceeding. 
Likewise, the petitioner fails to cite to any pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the director's 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. 
The untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.