dismissed EB-1C Case: Hospitality

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
iaifying data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasioa of p~sad privacy 
a File: LIN 06 039 53755 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: HAY 0 1 la7 
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 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
IN 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 06 039 53755 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103,3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
The petitioner is allegedly engaged in the hospitality business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
general 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. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. After the petitioner failed to respond to a Notice of 
Intent to Deny, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish (1) that the 
petitioner had been doing business for one year prior to the filing of the petition; (2) that the beneficiary's 
duties abroad were qualifying; or (3) that the beneficiary's duties in the United States will be qualifying. 
The Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, dated April 2, 2006 was 
signed by the beneficiary, not by an authorized representative of the petitioner and not on behalf of the 
petitioner. Therefore, the attorney identified in the Form G-28 is counsel to the beneficiary, not counsel to the 
petitioner. The Form I-290B that was submitted in response to the September 11, 2006 decision was signed 
- 
and filed by the attorney identified in the above Form G-28. While the petitioner previously appointed- 
as its counsel in this proceeding in a Form G-28 dated November 11, 2005, neither or the 
petitioner filed the instant appeal; rather, counsel to the beneficiary filed the appeal. 
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; 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 and his representative are not 
recognized parties, counsel is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.