dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invpston of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Elomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 2 4 2006 
SRC 98 154 5 1400 
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. $ 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON 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. 
- - ---7 
/ -64 
kobert~%iemid;n, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, initially approved the visa petition filed in the instant 
matter. Upon further consideration, the director revoked the approval of the visa petition in a decision dated 
October 20, 2005. An appeal has since been filed with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The 
appeal will be rejected as improperly filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B) states that only the affected party has legal standing in a 
proceeding. The regulation further clarifies that the beneficiary of a visa petition is not deemed an affected 
party. Accordingly, while the petitioner' may be represented by an attorney in this proceeding, an attorney 
representing the beneficiary will not be recognized unless the record contains adequate documentation 
showing that the attorney represents the petitioner. 
In the instant matter, a revocation was issued on November 8, 2005. Subsequently, a Form G-28 dated 
November 4, 2005 was submitted by on behalf of the beneficiary. The Form G-28 was 
signed by the beneficiary in his individual capacity and by Mr. Cowhig. The petitioner was not named in the 
Form G-28. Therefore, the AAO may not recognize the petitioner as being represented by as his 
appearance has been solely entered on behalf of the beneficiary. Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the 
Form I-290B appeal was improperly filed, as it was filed on behalf of the beneficiary who lacks standing to 
file an appeal as an unaffected party. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103,3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l) states that an appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled 
to file it must be rejected as improperly filed. Accordingly, the improperly filed appeal is hereby rejected. 
Additionally, with regard to counsel's reference to section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the 
Twenty First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) in his response to the Notice of Intent to Revoke, the AAO notes 
that the petition must be "valid" to begin with if it is to "remain valid with respect to a new job." Section 
2046) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 11546) (emphasis added). In the matter of a revoked Form 1-140, the effect of 
the revocation is retroactive. Therefore, the petition will never be considered to have been valid once 
revoked. Regardless, as the appeal is being rejected for improper filing, the AAO is precluded from exploring 
the issue of the petitioner's eligibility under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 
U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(C). 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected as improperly filed. 
1 
 The AAO notes that the petitioner filed the Form 1-140 under the name American Rainbow Corporation. However, the 
petitioner's State of Texas Certificate of Incorporation identifies the petitioner as America Rainbow Corporation. The 
reason for this name distinction is unclear.