dismissed EB-3 Case: Culinary Arts

~cferatifying data deleted to 
pmvent clear!y unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: . 
WAC 96 202 5 1892 
 f!&d 2 9 2006 
PETITION: Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional pursuant to section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(3) 
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. 
dobert P: Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, California Service Center, based on evidence showing the beneficiary's 
claimed employment history to be fraudulent, revoked approval of the employment-based visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
The petitioner is a restaurant. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a cook 
As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by a Form ETA 750 Application for Alien Employment 
Certification approved by the Department of Labor. The director determined, based on the evidence 
submitted and a consular investigation, that the beneficiary's claimed employment history is fraudulent and 
revoked the petition accordingly. 
The petitioner signed a Form G-28 Notice of Entry of Appearance recognizing an attorney as his attorney of 
record. A different attorney filed the Form I-290B appeal in this matter, along with a Form G-28 Notice of 
Entry of Appearance and a brief. The Form G-28 submitted by that second attorney is not signed by a 
representative of the petitioner, but by the beneficiary. Further, on the Form I-290B, the new attorney states 
that he represents the beneficiary. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner has agreed to be 
represented by this new attorney. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
(B) Meaning of aflected party. For purposes of this section and sections 103.4 and 103.5 of this 
part, aflected party (in addition to [CIS]) means the person or entity with legal standing in a 
proceeding. It does not include the beneficiary of a visa petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v) states: 
Improperly filed appeal -- (A) Appeal $led by person or entity not entitled to Jile it -- (1) 
Rejection without refund offiling fee. 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 refimded. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services' (CIS) regulations prohibit a beneficiary of a visa petition, or the 
beneficiary's representative acting on a beneficiary's behalf, from filing an appeal. The submissions do not 
indicate that the petitioner agreed to be represented by this second attorney but, rather, make clear that counsel 
represents the beneficiary. As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.3(a>(2)(v)(A>(l). 
A copy of this decision will be provided to the petitioner's last known counsel of record. A courtesy copy will 
also be provided to the beneficiary's counsel. 
Therefore, the appeal has not been properly filed, and must be rejected. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected as improperly filed.