remanded EB-1B Case: Higher Education

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
office ofddrntnutratlve Appeals, MS 2090 
identifying data dclated to 
 Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
Pre1-'e8t c f car1 y unw2nante.j 
 U.S. Citizenship 
invasion of personal privacy 
 and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
XYbl ?&L, 
p Jo . Grissom 
p~ctin~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be rejected. The AAO will return the matter for further action by the director. 
The petitioner is a higher education institution. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding 
professor pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
9 1153(b)(l)(B). 
Part 1 of the Form 1-140 petition identifies the University of Puerto Rico as the petitioner. An applicant 
or petitioner must sign his or her application or petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(a)(2). In this instance, Part 8 
of the Form 1-140, "Signature," was signed by any official of the university, and not the alien 
beneficiary. In fact, an alien beneficiary may not self-petition under the classification sought. 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(i)(1). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(l)(iii) states that, for purposes of appeals, certifications, and 
reopening or reconsideration, "affected party" (in addition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS)) means the person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding. It does not include 
the beneficiary of a visa petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(2)(v) states that an appeal filed 
by a person or entity not entitled to file it must be rejected as improperly filed. In such a case, any filing 
fee USCIS has accepted will not be refunded. 
Here, the appeal was filed not the petitioner, nor by any attorney or accredited representative of the 
petitioner, but rather the alien beneficiary, who has no standing to file an appeal on the petitioner's 
behalf. We must, therefore, reject the appeal as improperly filed. Nevertheless, the director sent the 
notice of decision (as well as the earlier request for additional evidence) not to the petitioning 
university, but to the alien himself. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(19) requires that notification of written decisions be sent to the 
petitioner. Here, because the director sent the notices to the alien beneficiary, rather than to the 
petitioning university, the director has arguably never served the notice of denial. Thus, the petitioning 
university has never had the opportunity to file a timely appeal. The director must reissue the denial 
notice in order to give the actual petitioner that opportunity. 
The appeal has not been filed by the petitioner, or by any entity with legal standing in the proceeding, 
but rather by the alien beneficiary. Therefore, the appeal has not been properly filed, and must be 
rejected. The director must serve a newly dated copy of the decision, properly addressed to the 
petitioner. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected. The matter is returned to the director for the limited purpose of 
the reissuance of the decision.