dismissed L-1A Case: Construction Materials

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Mas sachuset ts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Wash ington , DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship '
and Immigration
Services
, 0°"'!PUBLICC ~ " '~
FILE : WAC 0520550361 Office : CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 "l 2007
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant-to Section 101(a)(15)(L) ofthe
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
ON 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 ca se. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
~~
. Robert P. Wiemann , Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
-,
WAC 05 205 50361
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa.
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).
The petitioner states that it is engaged in the import , export, and wholesale of construction materials. It
seeks to employ the beneficiary as its managing d irector pursuant to § 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration
- and ~ationality Act, 8 U.S.c. 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the conclusion
that the petitioner failed to establish that (1) it had obtained sufficient physical premises in the United .
States to house the organization; or (2) a qualifying relationship existed between the petitioner and a
foreign entity as required by the regulations.
The Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, that was submitted for the record in
support of the appeal was not signed by the petitioner or an authorized representative thereof. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations specifically prohibit the filing of an appeal by an attorney or
representati ve without a properly executed Form G-28 entitling that person to file the appeal. 8 C.F.R. §
103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(2)(i). In this case, the Form G-28 that was submitted for the record was signed by the
beneficiary in his personal capacity. While it is noted for the record that, while the beneficiary does
appear to have been an agent for the petitioner, there is no evidence in the record that the beneficiary was
legally authorized to sign as a representative on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the appeal before
the AAO. Specifically , the Form G-28 submitted by counsel clearly limits his representation/appearance
to the beneficiary, and nowhere is it indicated that the beneficiary signed the form in .his capacity as
managing director for the petitioner.' .
Furthermore , counsel for the beneficiary indicated on Form I-290B that he would submita brief and/or
additional evidence to address the director 's denial within thirty days. Although counsel submitted a brief
statement on the . Form I-290B , he failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief
statement, counsel states "[p]etitioner was originally represented by legal counsel who was suspended or
disbarred. Sa~d counsel took possession of petitioner's U.S. corporate documents . Additional time is
needed to locate and secure original or copies of corporate records requested." Counsel 's statement on the
Form 1-290B does not specifically identify any errors on the part of the director.
On the Notice of Appeal received on January 19 , 2006, counsel for the beneficiary clearly indicates that it
would -send a brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. According to 8 C.F .R. §
103.3(a)(2)(i), the petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office
where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after service of the decision," which in the case
at hand would be no later than Monday, January 23, 2006. Although counsel requested an additional 30
) It is noted that the original G-28 filed with the petition is identical to the one submitted in support of the
appeal, As a result, the AAO notes that counsel was not an authorized representative of the petit ioner
during the adjudication process. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 103.2(3) , a beneficiary of a petition is not a
recognized party in such a proceeding. Consequently , it is noted that CIS erroneously recognized counsel
as an authorized -representative of the petitioner despite the fact that the Form G-28 clearly limited his
representation to the beneficiary.
,
WAC 05 205 50361
Page 3
days in which to submit its appeal, to date there is no indication or evidence that counsel ever submitted a
brief and/or evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or with the AAO.
On January 4,2007, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had
been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this
decision, the AAO has received no response from counsel. As stated above, absent a clear statement,
brief and/or evidence to the contrary, counsel does not identify, specifically, an erroneous conclusion of
law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal would have been summarily dismissed if it had been properly
filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v).
An appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled to file it must be rejected as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. §
103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). As the form G-28 was not properly executed, counsel is not authorized to file an
appeal.
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected . 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.
. 1