dismissed L-1A Case: Business

identifying~. 4etetetl\!.-.a. l ..........un~u:u
preventc ~•.1" oal .~
invasionofperso :pn
PUBUCCOpy
u.s. Departlll~llt offfolDeland.8ecurity
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC ,20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration.
Services
File: SRC 0612651126
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: "AY'O 1 2007
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L)
IN BEHALF OF BENEFICIARY:
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.
~~~ef
Administrative Appeals Office
www.us.cis.gov
SRC 0612651126
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).
The. petitioner is a South African business organization and is seeking to extend the employment of the
beneficiary as the managing director of its United States operation as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the' Act), 8 U.S.c. §
1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. '
The Fo~ G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, in the record was signed_ by the
beneficiary, not by an authorized representative of the petitioner and not on behalf of the petitioner.
Therefore, the attorney identified in the Form G-28 is counsel to the beneficiary, not counsel to the petitioner.
The Form I-290B that was submitted in response to the July 27, 2006 decision was signed and filed by the
attorney identified in the above Form G-28 on behalf of the beneficiary. Citizenship and Immigration
Services regulations specifically prohibit a beneficiary -of a visa petition, or a representative acting on a
beneficiary's behalf, from filing a petition; the beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized partY in a.
proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary and his representative are not recognized parties,
counsel is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B).
As the appeal was not properly filed, it must be rejected. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).1
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.
IFinally, counsel to the beneficiary asserts the following in the Form I-290B: "Both Petitioner and
Beneficiary respectfully request that the Service's decision be reconsidered because the Service misinterpreted
the evidence submitted regarding the number of employees of the business." However, counsel failed to
specifically explain how, exactly, the director misinterpreted this evidence or to suggest a proper
interpretation. Therefore, as 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) requires the AAO to summarily dismiss an appeal
when the appellant fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, the AAO
would be obligated to summarily dismiss the current appeal if the appeal were not being rejected. No specific
erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement offact has been identified for the appeal.