dismissed L-1A Case: Food Service

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cl;.. :,lwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
File: WAC 04 228 50276 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 C 6 ij$b 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(] 5)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 228 50276 
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. 3 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
The petitioner is allegedly a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of operating a coffee and 
refreshment kiosk. The petitioner seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its manager as an L- 
1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 1 O 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding, inter 
alia, that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, which was submitted with the initial 
petition, was signed by the beneficiary, not by an authorized representative on behalf of the petitioner. This is 
the only Form G-28 found in the record. 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 6,2005 
decision was signed and filed by the attorney identified in the above Form G-28. Moreover, the attorney 
identified himself in the Form I-290B as a representative of the beneficiary, not of the petitioner. 
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. 5 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary and his representative are not 
recognized parties, counsel is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it must be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.