dismissed L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3042.425 1 Street. N.W. 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
prc b L - 
U. S. Citizenship 
invbO~ of personar i?@vac8 and Immigration 
FEB 2 3 ",!I5 
File: LIN 03 188 52740 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration - 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 I0 [(a)(] 5)(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. 
,\ Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 03 188 52740 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Nebraska 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. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
The petitioner is a United States branch office of a Korean corporation engaging in the business of 
manufacturing, wholesale, and export of cold formed metal products. It seeks to employ the benefi1:iary as an 
overseas sales manager, and has petitioned to classify the beneficiary as an L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany 
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 IOl(a)(l5)(L). 
The director denied the petition after determining that the description of the beneficiary's job duties in the 
foreign entity provided by the petitioner in response to the director's request for additional evidence contains 
material changes from the description in the initial petition, such that the petitioner is required by the 
regulations to file an amended or new petition. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214,2(1)(7)(i)(C). The director further found 
that even if the amended duties were considered, the record does not establish that the beneficiary was 
primarily performing duties of a manager. The director also concluded that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the United States operation would support a managerial position within one year. The director 
questioned the reliability of the evidence relating to the beneficiary's job duties, noting that the kleneficiary 
herself, rather than an authorized officer of the company, signed the petition, the Form G-28, and the U.S. 
entity's letter of support submitted with the petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that beneficiary did not sign the petition or its supporting 
materials, did not contribute to the authorship of such documents or affirm their content, and did not authorize 
the use of her apparent signature on such documents. Counsel submits a sworn affidavit from the beneficiary 
to that effect. Counsel further asserts that because the petition and supporting materials were not reviewed 
and affirmed by an appropriate corporate officer, the information contained therein was incomplete and at 
least partially inaccurate. Counsel further submits on appeal a new Form G-28 and letters of support 
purportedly signed by the president of the petitioner, as well as additional exhibits to supplement the petition. 
However, no new or amended petition signed by an authorized officer of the petitioner has been submitted. 
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 filing or thereafter, is true and 
correct." 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(2). Furthermore, "[aln application or petition which is not properly sisned or is 
submitted with the wrong filing fee shall be rejected as improperly filed. Rejected applications ancl petitions 
. . . will not retain a filing date." 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
Since the beneficiary stated in her sworn affidavit that she had not signed or authorized the use of her 
signature on the petition, the petition containing her signature must be deemed "not properly signed" and 
therefore improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i). The AAO recognizes that the counsel for the petitioner 
has submitted on appeal letters in support of the petition purportedly signed by the president of the petitioner. 
However, the petitioner still has not submitted a petition properly signed by one of its authorized officers or 
representatives. As such, it would appear that there is no "properly filed" petition before Citizenship and 
LIN 03 188 52740 
Page 3 
Immigration Services (CIS) at this time in regard to this matter, and the July 3, 2003 decision of the director 
must be withdrawn. With no properly filed petition before the CIS, and therefore no appealable decision, the 
AAO does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant appeal. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(ii). Moreover, 
given these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be considered to be an "affected party" with legal standing to 
file an appeal in this matter. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.