dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifling data deleted to 
prevent c?.: A arranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Ilomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 04 101 50414 
 WV ~171~ 
IN RE: 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Rob-, ~hikf 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal.' The appeal will be rejected as improperly filed 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president and chief executive 
officer. 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), 
as a multinational executive or manager. After reviewing the evidence submitted, the director denied the 
petition based on three independent grounds for ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that it would 
employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; 2) the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and 3) the petitioner failed 
to provide sufficient documentation establishing that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's 
claimed foreign employer. 
On April 27, 2006, the beneficiary filed a Form I-290B with the service cente? on her own behalf purporting 
to appeal the decision of the director dated March 22, 2006.3he beneficiary did not indicate that she was 
signing the Form I-290B on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, the beneficiary used her home address, and 
not the business address of the petitioner, in completing the Form I-290B. Therefore, it must be concluded 
that the beneficiary filed the Form I-290B, and not the petitioner. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 
regulations specifically prohibit a beneficiary of a visa petition, or a representative acting on a beneficiary's 
behalf, from filing a petition; the beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized party in a proceeding. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary is not a recognized party, she is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(~).~ 
As the appeal was improperly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected as improperly filed. 
I 
 Although the beneficiary refers to the denials of the Form 1-140 and Form 1-485 in her appeal statement dated May 26, 
2006, it is noted that the denial of the Form 1-485 is not subject to appeal. See 8 C.F.R. (j 245.2(a)(5)(ii). 
The beneficiary apparently attempted to file the Form I-290B on April 20, 2006. 
 However, as the beneficiary 
improperly sent the form directly to the AAO it was returned to her with an explanation that the AAO does not process 
applications or fees. 
The AAO notes that the record has been supplemented with a recent Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as 
- 
Attorney or Representative. However, the Form G-28 clearly indicates that ntered his appearance 
only as the beneficiary's representative. Neither the petitioner's name nor any information pertaining to the petitioner has 
been included in the recently filed Form G-28. As such, annot be deemed attorney for the petitioner in this 
proceeding. 
4 
 It is noted that in her appellate brief, the beneficiary provides a personal narrative of her arrival to the United States and 
subsequent experiences thereafter. Since 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires the AAO to summarily dismiss an appeal 
when the appellant fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law of statement of fact, the AAO would be 
obligated to summarily dismiss the current appeal if the appeal were not being rejected. The beneficiary did not identify 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal.