dismissed L-1A Case: Home Cleaning

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
\PUBUCC(Wf
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: SRC 06 087 50515 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date:
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. § 1101(a)(l5)(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.
~-­Robe~ema~n,~ Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis:gov
"
SRC 06 087 50515
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal w!ll be rejected pursuant to 8
C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(1).
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its·president to open
a new office 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)(l5)(L). The petitioner is a corporation
'organized under the laws,of the State of Florida and is allegedly a home cleaning business.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that (1) the petitioner has
secured sufficient premises to house the new office; or (2) the United States operation, within one year of the
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position.
On June 20, 2006, the beneficiary filed a Form 1-290B with the service center purporting to appeal the
decision of the director dated May 18, 2006. The beneficiary did not indicate that he was signing the Form,I­
290B on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, it must be concluded that the beneficiary filed the Form 1-290B,
and not the petitioner. Citize~ship 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. § 103.2(a)(3). As the
beneficiary, is not a recognized party, heis not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 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)(A)(1).1
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.
j
'MoreoVer, the beneficiary asserts the following in the Form I-290B: "Because of the voluminous documents
submitted with the original petition, I need additional time to gather more voluminous documents that have
not already been submitted. Please note, this was a case for anew office. How can you deny a case for a new
office when everything nec~ssary by law and regulation was submitted[?]" The Form I-290B also indicates
,that a brief arid/or additional evidence would be submitted within ninety days. However, as ofthe date of this
decision, a brief or additional evidence has not been received. Since 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(a)( I)(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 erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact has been identified
for the appeal.