dismissed EB-3 Case: Medicine

identifjiing dae deleted U, 
pmvmt clexiy marrand 
invasion bi pzrsonal priva~y 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
EAC 04 158 51807 
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. 3 1153(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the preference visa petition that is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I>. 
The petitioner is a medical office. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
medical record technician. 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 that the beneficiary had entered into a sham marriage in an attempt to evade immigration laws and 
denied the petitioner pursuant to Section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). 
An attomey filed the appeal in this matter. The attorney indicated on the appeal farm that she represents the 
beneficiary. Further, the record contains two G-28 Notices of Entry of Appearance indicating that the 
attorney who filed the appeal represents the beneficiary. The record does not contain a G-28 showing that the 
attorney who filed the appeal represents the petitioner in this case, nor any other evidence indicating that the 
petitioner has consented to be represented by the attorney who filed the appeal. 
The record of proceeding contains a properly executed Form G-28 executed by the petitioner's representative and 
another attorney. Although that other attorney does not appear to have been involved with the appeal, whether or 
not the petitioner obtained new counsel is unknown. Therefore, a copy of ths decision will be provided to the 
petitioner's last known counsel of record. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
(B) Meaning of afectedparty. For purposes of this section and sections 103.4 and 103.5 of this 
part, afected 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. 3 103.3(a)(2)(v) states: 
Improperly fled appeal -- (A) Appeal filed by person or entity not entitled to $file it -- (I) 
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 refunded. 
The appeal was not filed by the petitioner, nor by any entity with legal standing in this proceeding, but by the 
beneficiary. The beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized party in a proceeding. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(3). 
Only the affected party is permitted to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
 103.3(a)(Z)(i). 
Citizenship and Immigration Services' (CIS) 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. 3 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
 As the 
appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
Page 3 
As the beneficiary and his representative are not recognized parties, counsel for the beneficiary is not authorized 
to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A) and (B). Therefore, the appeal has not been properly filed, and 
must be rejected. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected as improperly filed.