dismissed L-1A Case: Construction Equipment Import/Export

identifying data deleted to 
prevent !earl) unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
File: SRC 05 107 50638 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 OPT 3 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
- 3 
,--.' 5 Y(*/ 
Robert P. ham, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 107 50638 
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. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary in 
the position of operation specialties manager as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101(a)(15)(L). The 
petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida and is allegedly engaged in the 
business of importing and exporting construction equipment and materials. The director denied the petition 
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
Counsel for the beneficiary filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. 
The Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, dated June 15, 2005 and which was 
submitted with the current appeal, was signed by the beneficiary (identified in the G-28 as "applicant"), 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 May 3 1,2005 decision was signed and filed by the attorney identified in the 
above Form G-28 as counsel to the beneficiary. 
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 a petition; the beneficiary of a visa petition is 
not a recognized party in a proceeding. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(3). Moreover, a prior approval of a visa petition 
does not vest a beneficiary with any rights. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988). As the 
beneficiary and her representative are not recognized parties, counsel is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 
 103.3(a)(2)(v)(~)(l).' 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
1 
Moreover, a review of Citizenship and Immigration Services records indicates that this beneficiary is also the 
beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition and has adjusted status to that of a permanent resident on August 
15, 2006. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the 
beneficiary is presently a permanent resident and the issues in this proceeding are moot. Therefore, the appeal 
would be dismissed as moot if it were not being rejected for the reasons given in this decision.