dismissed L-1A Case: Management And Consulting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
obert P. Wiernann, hirector 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 173 53781 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. 4 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to extend the employment of its director as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Florida corporation that claims to be engaged in the provision of 
management and consulting services. The petitioner claims that it is an affiliate of Interactivos Servicios 
Financieros C.A., located in Caracas, Venezuela. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of 
stay in L-IA status in order to open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend 
her status for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship 
between the United States and foreign entities. 
Counsel subsequently filed the instant appeal and indicated on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, that she 
represents the beneficiary. The Forms G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, that were 
submitted with the 1-129 petition and on appeal were signed by the beneficiary in her personal capacity. The 
beneficiary did not indicate that she was signing as an authorized representative of the petitioner. The 
petitioner is not named on the Form G-28 or Form I-290B. Thus, the record clearly shows that counsel is 
representing the beneficiary, 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. 
$ 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. 3 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.