dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
Date: MAY 2 3 2013 
INRE : Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusens Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION : Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative App eals Office in your case. All of the document s 
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, 
t~ ';i, Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center and the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on a second appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner is a Florida limited liability company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its administrative 
manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition, and the AAO 
affirmed that decision, after determining that the petitioner had not established eligibility. 
The Form I-290B was filed and signed by the beneficiary, not by an authorized representative of the 
petitioner. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations specifically prohibit a beneficiary of a visa 
petition, or a representative acting on a beneficiary's behalf, from filing a petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3). 
The beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized party in an appellate proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). As the beneficiary is not recognized as the affected party, he is not authorized to file an 
appeal. 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it must be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).
1 
Additionally, the AAO notes for the record that even if the appeal had been properly filed, it would be 
dismissed as moot. 
The petitioner claims to be a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. During the initial 
review of the appeal, the AAO discovered evidence that the petitioning business in this matter has been 
voluntarily dissolved. If the petitioning business is no longer an active business, the petition will have become 
1 Further, the AAO notes that the beneficiary seeks appellate review of the AAO' s own decision. There is no 
statutory or regulatory provision that permits the petitioner to file more than one appeal before the AAO with 
regard to the same petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(ii). The authority to adjudicate appeals is delegated to 
the AAO by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the authority vested in 
him through the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 
(effective March 1, 2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the 
matters described at 8 C.F.R. § 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28, 2003), with one exception -
petitions for approval of schools under § 214.3 are now the responsibility of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE). The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over its own decisions. Accordingly, 
the appeal is not properly within the AAO's jurisdiction. 
As noted in the AAO's cover letter, the petitioner had the option of filing a motion to reopen or a 
motion to reconsider the AAO's most recent decision within 33 days of service pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5. However, as the appeal was not filed by the affected party and must be rejected, the AAO 
will not consider whether the submission meets the requirements of a motion. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
moot. This fact would be material to the petitioner 's eligibility for the requested visa as a dissolved entity can no 
longer offer the beneficiary permanent employment in the United States. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden . 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected .