DATE: FEB 2 5 2013 . OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvi..:es
Administrative Appeals OITice (J\J\0)
20 MassachuscusAvc .. N.W., MS 20'!(1
Washington , DC 20529-2090
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
FILE:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Wor~er as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(h)(2)(A) of the Immigration and.Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
. INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents related . to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be .made to that office. Thank you,
Ron Rosenberg
. Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
. j
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition, which 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. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the· affected party or the attorney or representative of record must submit the complete appeai within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, :the appeal must be filed within 33 ~ays. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). The date of filing is not the date of submission, but the date of actual receipt with.the required fee. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i).
The record in~icates that the service center direCtor issued the decision on Tuesday, July 10, 2012. It is noted that the service center director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 30 days to file theappeal, as the denial was-serit via facsimile. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time limit. .
The appeal was due by Thursday, August 9, 2012. · It was not received by the service ceniet until Monday, August 13, 2012. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed.
The regulation at 8 C.F.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 must be made on the merits of the case. The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who inade the last decision in the proceeding,' in this case the Director of the Texas Service Center. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The director determined that the late appeal did not meet the requirements of 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.