dismissed L-1A Case: Interior Design And Architectural Consulting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Avc., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S.Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 01 287 56299 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: I)& 2 2 
Petition: Petition far a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 IOl(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 01 287 56299 
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. $6 103.2(a)(7)(i) and 1 03.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of California that claims to be engaging in the business 
of interior design and architectural consulting. It seeks to extend the employment of its president as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracornpany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(IS)(L). The director denied the petition after determining that the petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that the begeficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The documents filed on appeal include a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, on which the signature, name and 
address of the person filing the appeaI were left blank. The reasons for appeal were stated as follows: 
I work as an executive officer and I like to explain why. 
The reason I should have more time to develop the company. 
The goal for the company. 
Also submitted was a letter from the beneficiary elaborating upon the reasons for appeal. 
Based on the stated reasons for appeal on Form 1-290B, it appears that the beneficiary filed the appeal. 
However, absent the information required on Form I-290B identifying the person filing the appeal, it cannot 
be determined whether the beneficiary filed the appeal in his individual capacity or on behalf of the petitioner. 
The Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations specifically prohibit a beneficiary of a visa 
petition, or a representative acting 011 a beneficiary's behalf, from filing a petition; the beneficiary of a visa 
petition is not a recognized party in a proceeding and therefore is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
53 103.2(a)(3) and 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). Thus, an appeal filed by the beneficiary in his individual capacity 
must be rejected as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
Even assuming that the beneficiary filed the appeal as an authorized representative of the petitioner, on behalf 
of the petitioner, the appeal must be rejected for lack of proper signature. The regulations provide that "[aln 
applicant or petitioner must sign his or her application or petition. . . . By signing the application or petition, 
the applicant or petitioner . . . certifies under penalty of perjury that the application or petition, and all 
evidence submitted with it, either at the time of fiIing or thereafter, is true and correct." 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.2(a)(2). An application or petition that is not properly signed, as is the case here, must be rejected as 
improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
Based on the foregoing, the appeal will be rejected as inlproperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 55 103.2(a)(7)(i) and 
l03.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I>. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.