dismissed L-1A Case: Management And Consulting

U.S. Deportment of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetls Ave . h M' . Rm A3042 
Washington. DC 20520 
U.S. Citizenship 
. and Immigration 
F~le: SRC 04 173 53781 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 2 8 ~OJ 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Benefictary: 
Petttion: Petltton for a Non~mmlgrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Imm~grat~on 
and Nationahty Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Th~s is the decis~on of the Admlnistratlve Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that or~ginally dectded your case. Any further tnqulry must be made to that office. 
-7--.. . 
_ _--- 
dmin~stratlve Appeals Office 
SRC 04 173 53781 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center denled the non~mmlgrant visa petltlon and the matter 1s 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal wlll be rejected pursuant lo 8 
C.F.R. 3 103 3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
The petitioner filed thls petitlon seeking to extend the employment of its director as an L-IA nonimmlgrant 
lntracompany transferee pursuant to sectlon 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationahty Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 6 1101(a)(l5)(L). The petitioner 1s a Flonda corporation that clalms to be engaged in the provision of 
management and consulting services. The petitioner claims that it is an affiliate of 
located in Caracas, Venezuela. The beneficlary was'initially 
stay in L-IA status in order to open a new office in the Unlted States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend 
her status for a three-year period. 
The director denled the pet~tlon, concluding that the petitloner failed to establish a quahfying relationship 
between the Unlted States and foreign entitles. 
Counsel subsequently filed the instant appeal and lndlcated on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, that she 
represents the benefictary The Forms G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representatwe, that were 
submitted w~th the 1-129 petition and on appeal were signed by the benefi clary in her personal capacity. The 
beneficlary did not lnd~cate that she was signmg as an authonzed representatwe of the petitioner The 
petltloner 1s not named on the Form G-28 or Form I-290B. Thus, the record clearly shows that counsel 1s 
representing the beneficiary, not the pet~tloner. Cltizenshlp and Immigration Servlces (CIS) regulations 
specifically prohlblt a beneficlary of a vlsa petition, or a representatwe actlng on a beneficiary's behalf, from 
filing a petltlon; the beneficiary of a visa petlt~on IS not a recognized party In a proceeding 8 C.F.R. 
.$ 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficlary and h~s representative are not recognized parties, counsel is not author~zed 
to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(lii)(B). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, ~t will be rejected. 8 C.F R. $ 103 3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.