remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Church Construction

~dentifying data deleted to 
prevc~lt clearly unwarranted 
invasion of ~rsonal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Ililmigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
V 
2 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. The 
AAO will return the matter for further action by the director. 
The alien beneficiary seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act). 8 U.S.C. 6 1153(bM2). as an alien of exce~tional abilitv. The beneficiarv is a church construction 
bfficer flr the-~ &e benefici4 seeks an exemption from the requirement of 
a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, in the national interest of the United States. The director found that 
the beneficiary does not qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or for a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement. 
Part 1 of the Form 1-140 petition rather ambiguously identifies both the beneficiary and 
as the petitioner. Review of the petition form, however, indicates m!m 
beneficiary is the petitioner. An applicant or petitioner must sign his or her application or petition. 8 C.F.R. 
S 103.2(a)(2). In this instance. Part 8 of the Form I- 140. "Sirmature." has been simed not bv anv church official. 
. ,. , * " 
but by the alien beneficiary himself. Thus, the alien, and not thehas taken 
responsibility for the content of the petition. While a church official prepared the petition form, the alien himself 
is the only party we can justifiably consider to be the petitioner. 
8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(iii) states that, for purposes of appeals, certifications, and reopening or reconsideration, 
"affected party" (in addition to the Citizenship and Immigration Services) means the person or entity with legal 
standing in a proceeding. It does not include the beneficiary of a visa petition. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(2)(v) states 
that an appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled to file it must be rejected as improperly filed. In such a case, 
any filing fee the Service has accepted will not be refunded. 
We note, at the same time, that the director sent the notice of decision not to the alien self-petitioner, but to the 
presumably because the Form 1-140 identified the church as the petitioner. 
Thus, the director has never issued any relevant notices to the petitioner himself. 
8 C.F.R. tj 103.5a(a)(l) defines "routine service" as mailing a copy by ordinary mail addressed to a person at his 
last known address. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5a(b) states that service by mail is complete upon mailing. Here, because the 
director addressed the notices to the attention of an official of the rather than 
to the alien self-petitioner himself, the director has arguably never served the notice of denial. Thus, the self- 
petitioning alien has never had the opportunity to file a timely appeal. The director must reissue the denial notice 
in order to give the actual petitioner that opportunity. 
We note that, if the alien petitioner chooses to appeal the director's decision, statements from church officials will 
be duly considered, albeit as witness statements rather than as the petitioner's own arguments. Because there is, 
as yet, no valid appeal in the record, we examine, here, neither the basis of the denial nor the merits of the appeal 
submitted by the 
 We will duly consider those factors if and when the self- 
petitioning alien files a proper and timely appeal.' 
We note that the director indicated on the notice of decision that the fee to file an appeal is $1 10. While the 
appeal fee used to be $1 10, that fee was increased to $385 for all appeals filed on or after September 28, 2005, 
pursuant to new regulations published at 70 Fed. Reg. 50954 (August 29,2005). The director's notice of decision 
was issued on November 9, 2005, more than a month after the fee increase took effect. When the director 
reissues the notice of decision, the director must advise the petitioner of the correct fee amount. 
The appeal has not been filed by the petitioner, nor by any entity with legal standing in the proceeding, but rather 
by the beneficiary. Therefore, the appeal has not been properly filed, and must be rejected. The director must 
serve a newly dated copy of the decision, properly addressed to the petitioner. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected. The matter is returned to the director for the limited purpose of the 
reissuance of the decision. 
' It is conceivable that the petitioner may choose not to pursue this matter any further. An earlier petition (receipt 
number WAC 03 256 54509) had been filed on the alien's behalf, seeking to classify the alien as a special immigrant 
religious worker. The director had approved that petition but revoked that approval; the AAO reversed the director's 
decision, thereby reinstating the approval of the special immigrant religious worker petition. Because the alien is already 
the beneficiary of an approved immigrant position, with a September 12, 2003 priority date, the approval of the present 
petition would be of no obvious additional benefit to the alien.