dismissed L-1A Case: Dental Instruments

identifying data deletd to 
prevent clearly unwmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC ,COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 101(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. 
- 
- 
 - .- 
6- 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 028 51413 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the California 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. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
The petitioner is a corporation engaged in the manufacture, trade, and research of dental instruments. It has 
petitioned to classify the beneficiary 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. Lj 1 101(a)(15)(L). The director 
denied the petition after determining that (1) the beneficiary would not be employed in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity; and (2) the petitioner and the foreign entity did not maintain a qualifying relationship 
as required by the regulations. 
The appeal in this matter, submitted on Form I-290B, was prepared and executed by and on behalf of the 
beneficiary, not by an authorized representative of the petitioner. The appeal specifically states that it is filed 
by the beneficiary on his own behalf, and there is no indication that he was acting as an authorized 
representative of the petitioner.' 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. Lj 103.2(a)(3). As the 
beneficiary is not a recognized party, he is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
1 
 It is noted for the record that, while the beneficiary does appear to have been an agent for the petitioner in 
the past, 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 appeal 
clearly limits its arguments to the beneficiary individually, and nowhere is it indicated that the beneficiary 
signed the form in his capacity as an authorized representative for the petitioner.