remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Religion

rdentifyirng data deieted Eo 
prevera t dearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUWlIc COPY 
-*.A 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 0 2006 
WAC 04 024 525 19 
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 Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(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. 
\I 
$ Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
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. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability. The beneficiary is a church dissemination and 
management liaison officer for the Church of Scientology International. The beneficiary 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l), every petition must be executed and filed in accordance with the instructions 
on the fonn. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) requires the petitioner to sign the petition. Part 8 of Form 1-140, "Signature," 
is the portion of the form dedicated to the signature of the petitioner; instructions in Part 8 include the attestation 
that the contents of the petition are true and correct. Here, no church official signed Part 8 of the Fonn 1-140. 
Instead. the alien beneficiary simed this Dart of the form. Thus. the alien herself took res~onsibilitv for the 
. w 
petition, and she, herself, must be considered to be the petitioner. 
 signed Part 9 of the Form 
1-140, "Signature of person preparing form," but by this signature, 
 merely attested that she 
"prepared this petition at the r uest of the above person," i.e., the actual petitioner. It may well be that both the 
alien beneficiary and intended for the Church of Scientology International to be the petitioner, 
butid not sign Part 8 of the Form 1-140 and therefore the Church of Scientology has not formally 
accepted responsibility for the petition. 
8 C.F.R. 3 103,3(a)(l)(iii) states that, for purposes of appeals, certifications, and reopening or reconsideration, 
"affected party7' (in addition to the Citizenship and Immigration Services) means the person or entity with legal 
standing in a proceeding. Here, the petitioner (i.e., the alien beneficiary) is the affected party. The Church of 
Scientology is not an affected party in this proceeding. 
8 C.F.R. § 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. As we have already 
observed, the petitioner did not filed the appeal in this instance. The Church of Scientology International, which 
is not an affected party, filed the appeal. Therefore, we must reject the appeal submitted by the Church of 
Scientology International in the present proceeding. 
Because the director failed to recognize that the alien beneficiary is the true petitioner in this case, the director 
mailed the notice of decision to the Church of Scientology International. We acknowledge that, in this 
instance, the beneficiary's mailing address is in care of that church; but the general principle stands that the 
director must serve notice of the decision on the petitioner him- or herself. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5a(a)(l) states that 
routine service consists of mailing a copy by ordinary mail addressed to a person at his or her last known 
address. The denial notice was not addressed to the petitioner. We cannot arbitrarily consider service to a 
different individual at the same address to be ro er service. Therefore, the director has not properly served 
the petitioner with notice of the decision, and 
f 
was not acting as an authorized representative 
of the petitioner when she signed the Form I-290B Notice o Appeal. 
In the event that the petitioner chooses to file a proper appeal from the director's decision, we note that the 
petitioner is at liberty to include statements or arguments from church officials if the petitioner so desires. 
The rejection of the present improperly filed appeal should not be construed to mean that we would disregard 
statements from church officials. The rejection means only that the church is neither the petitioner nor an 
accredited representative authorized to file appeals on the petitioner's behalf pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 292.2(a). 
Any appeal filed by the petitioner must include a Form I-290B Notice of Appeal signed either by the 
petitioner herself, or by an attorney or accredited representative, in which case the appeal submission should 
include Form G-28 Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative signed by both the petitioner 
and the attorney or accredited representative. 
Unless and until the affected party properly submits a timely appeal, we shall not discuss the merits of the 
director's decision or the rebuttal arguments offered by the Church of Scientology International. 
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. 
In the event that the petitioner chooses to file an appeal, we note here that, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(vii), 
the AAO is not required to accept untimely supplements to appeals. Rather, the petitioner must, in advance, 
demonstrate that good cause exists for a specified extension of time. The filing of an appeal does not secure for 
the petitioner an open-ended or indefinite period in which to supplement the record at will, and a petitioner cannot 
indefinitely suspend the adjudication of an appeal by repeatedly requesting small increments of additional time or 
by requesting an extension for an unspecified amount of time. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected. The matter is returned to the director for the limited purpose of the 
reissuance of the decision.