dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 07 234 52408 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 2008 
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)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 234 52408 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the nonirnrnigrant 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. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I) and 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)@)(I). 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation and is allegedly an import/export business. The petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its sales general 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. 9 
1 101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On January 24, 2008, the beneficiary filed a Form I-290B with the service center purporting to appeal the 
decision of the director dated December 13, 2007. The beneficiary did not indicate that she was signing the 
Form I-290B on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, it must be concluded that the beneficiary filed the Form 
I-290B, and not 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. Cj 103.2(a)(3). As the 
beneficiary is not a recognized party, she 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. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the complete appeal within 
30 days after service of the decision, or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision 
was served by mail. The record indicates that the decision of the director was sent to the petitioner on December 
13,2007. The petitioner filed an appeal with the Vermont Service Center on January 24,2008,42 days after the 
decision was served. ' 
 h he regulahon at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of 
a motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2) or a motlon to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
103.5(a)(3), the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. 
However, as this appeal is also being rejected because it was filed by an unrecognized party, the service 
center director should not treat the untimely appeal as a motion. Regardless, it is noted that the appeal does 
not meet the apphcable requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a). This 
regulation states in pertinent part that "[a] motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." Id. Furthermore, "[a] 
motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsiderahon and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or [CIS] policy." Id. In this 
matter, the petitioner offers no "new" evidence, whch was not available in the initial proceeding. Likewise, 
the petitioner fails to cite to any perhnent precedent decisions establishing that the director's decision was an 
incorrect application of law or CIS policy. 
EAC 07 234 52408 
Page 3 
Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must also be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 
103.3(a)(2)(v)P)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
'It must be noted that in the beneficiary's Form I-290B no explanation was offered regarding the petitioner's 
failure to establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in an executive or managerial capacity. 
Since 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(l)(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 was identified for the appeal.