dismissed L-1A Case: Interior Decoration And Remodeling

P 
-kktifying data deleted to 
pmvent dearly unwmted 
Waaion of personal priv~c~ 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
services 
File: SRC 02 184 50541 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NW 3 0 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Petition r or a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(l SXL) 
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 faher inquiry must be made to that office. 
//"- ""+- 
Robert kW~emann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 02 184 50541 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition on 
December 2,2002, On March 10,2003, the director denied a motion to reopen and reconsider. On May 20, 
2003, the spouse of the beneficiary filed an untimely appeal to the denial of the motion, which was treated by 
the director as a second motion to reopen and reconsider. On March 27,2004, the director denied the second 
motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Ij 103.5 for failure to meet the applicable requirements of a motion. On April 23, 
2004, counsel to the beneficiary appealed the denial of the second motion to the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO). This matter is now before the AAO on appeal. The appeaI will be rejected pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation allegedly engaged in the business of interior decoration and 
remodeling. The petitioner seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its president as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner 
failed to establish that (1) the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity; 
(2) the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity; (3) the beneficiary intended to return 
abroad after the assignment in the United States; (4) the petitioner had been doing business during the 
previous year; and (5) the foreign entity continued to do business abroad, 
The Forms G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, which were submitted for the record 
were both signed by the beneficiary, not by an authorized representative of the petitioner and not on behalf of 
the petitioner. 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 March 27, 2004 decision was signed 
and filed by the attorney identified in the above Form G-28 as the attorney for the beneficiary and his spouse. 
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. Ij 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. 5 103.3(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)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
'It should be noted that 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires an officer to whom an appeal is taken to summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. In this matter, the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous 
conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding. The only error alleged by purported counsel in the 
Form I-290B was that the director shouId have construed the second motion filed by the spouse of the 
beneficiary to have been filed by both the spouse and the beneficiary. However, as explained above, CIS 
regulations specifically prohibit even a beneficiary of a visa petition from filing a petition, motion, or appeal. 
See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2, 103.3, and 103.5. Therefore, as counsel has not identified an erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal, the appeal would be summarily dismissed if it were not being rejected 
for the reason given in this decision.