PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2013-05-23 · TSC · MAY232013_03B5203

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
    DATMAY 2 3 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER · INRE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: 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 FILE: · 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:

    SELF-REPRESENTED

    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,

    Efru{~.;t !t-1 (U.r?>~~:r.:=-k

    Ron Rosenberg

    Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

    DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed.

    The petitioner must appeal an unfavorable decision within 30 days of service. 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i). If the unfavorable decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. 8 C.P.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 is the actual date of receipt at the location designated for filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). The appeal must be signed and submitted with the correct fee. !d.

    The director issued the decision denying the petition on September 24, 2012. The director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner filed the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on December 21, 2012 or 88 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the appeal is untimely.1

    If an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made the last decision in the proceeding, in this case the Director, Texas Service Center. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). As required by 8 C.P.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.

    The untimely appeal must be rejected pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l).

    ORDER: The appeal is rejected.