dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

identifylng data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC Copy 
DATE: MAR 0 1 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1 )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.P.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~ Perry Rhew 
P Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
cc: Robert S. Dickey at American Law Center 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was initially approved by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
On further review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit 
sought. Accordingly, the director properly served the petitioner with a notice of his intention to revoke the 
approval of the preference visa petition, and his reasons therefore. The director ultimately revoked the 
approval of the 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. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
The petitioner is a corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its executive director and has therefore 
petitioned to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1 1 53(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The record of proceeding contains a properly executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as 
Attorney or Representative, for the beneficiary'S authorized representative. Following the director's decision 
revoking the approval of the visa petition, counsel for the beneficiary signed and filed this appeal on behalf of 
the beneficiary. 
The beneficiary of a visa petition is not an affected party that may be recognized in this proceeding. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(3). United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) regulations specifically prohibit 
a beneficiary of a visa petition, or a representative acting on a beneficiary's behalf, from filing an appeal. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(iii)(B). No evidence suggests that the petitioner consented to the filing of the appeal.l 
As the beneficiary and his representative are not recognized parties, the appeal must be rejected as improperly 
filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
1 Furthermore, the record contains a properly executed Form G-28 from an attorney who indicates that she 
represents both the beneficiary and the petitioner. There is no documentation to show that this attorney has 
withdrawn her representation of the petitioner in this matter.