dismissed EB-1C Case: Jewelry Design And Retail

U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
lbeo-g dab dcle(cQ 
 U. S. Citizenship 
vent &dy unwarsnter' and Immigration 
*- I~VSBS~ of mrsonal prl~ac\. 
 Services 
FILE: LIN 05 179 52093 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 1 4 2006 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
COURTESY COPY MAILED TO: 
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. 
pbert P. Vbiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 05 179 52093 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
The petitioner filed the immigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or 
executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois that is 
operating as a designer and retailer of jewelry, tiaras, headbands and other related accessories. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its president. The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that 
the beneficiary had been employed by the foreign entity or would be employed by the United States entity in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. This timely appeal followed. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within thirty days of service of the unfavorable decision. In accordance with 8 
C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B), "affected party" means, in addition to Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS), the person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding. It does not include the beneficiary of a visa 
petition. 
Here, Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office, indicates that the beneficiary is 
the represented party in the present appeal. Additionally, the appellate brief subsequently submitted by 
counsel identifies the beneficiary as the party appealing the director's decision. Counsel's closing signature on 
the appellate brief reinforces the finding that the beneficiary himself, rather than the petitioner, is filing the 
appeal, as she references the beneficiary as the represented party. None of the documents submitted on appeal 
identify the petitioner as a represented party.' 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. 
 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary is not an 
affected party, counsel is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
 103,3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it must be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
' The AAO notes that the Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance, submitted with the initial filing of the 
visa petition is the only document in the record identifying the petitioner as a represented party.