PetitionLens
All decisions
RejectedEB-2 · Appeal

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2013-06-28 · NSC · JUN282013_04B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

What the AAO decided

Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (2)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · DATE: JUN 2 8 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: · INRE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: · PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced

    Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)

    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. ~~nkyou,

    ' "\~xl v u \...._ __

    Ron Rosenberg

    Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals

    Office www.uscis.gov

    DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, Nebraska Service Center (Director). The Director subsequently revoked the approval of the petition. The revocation decision is now on appeal before the Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed.

    The petitioner must appeal a decision to revoke the approval of a petition within 15 days of service. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d). If the unfavorable decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 18 days of service. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). An untimely appeal must be rejected as improperly filed. Neither the

    Act nor the regulations grant the AAO authority to extend this time limit.

    The filing date of an appeal is the date of receipt at the location designated for filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). The appeal must be signed and submitted with the correct fee. ld.

    The Director revoked the approval of the petition on February 11, 2013. The Director's Notice of Revocation properly instructed the petitioner that it had 18 days to file an appeal or motion. Thus, an appeal or motion was due by Friday, March 1, 2013. The instant appeal was received by the Director on Monday, March 4, 2013, as evidenced by the mailing label, the tracking information for the package, and the Nebraska Service Center receipt stamp. Thus, the appeal was filed 21 days after the date of the decision. Accordingly, it is untimely.

    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 made the last decision in the proceeding, in this case the Director of the Nebraska Service Center. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). As required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(ii)­ (iv), the Director reviewed the appeal prior to forwarding it to the AAO, and did not conclude that it met the requirements of a motion or otherwise warrant favorable action. 1 In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l), the untimely appeal must be rejected. ORDER: The appeal is rejected.