dismissed L-1A Case: Printing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 02 064 56001 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 4 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1(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 ease. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 064 56001 
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. 3 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
The petitioner ~~u.s.A., Inc., a California corporation.' This is an "initial new office" petition. 
The petitioner seeks twmploy the beneficiary as an executive branch manager of a printing company, and 
has petitioned to classify the beneficiary as an L-1A nonirnmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to 
section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(l5)(L). The 
director denied the petition after concluding that "the evidence fails to establish that the petitioner meets the 
requirements as defined by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~)." 
The Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney,or Representative, dated June 25,2002, that was submitted 
for the record was signed by the beneficiary (identified in the G-28 as "applicant"), not by an authorized 
representative of the petitioner. Moreover, the I-290B that was submitted also clearlv states that the attorney 
is -acting on behalf of ihe beneficiary, and not on behalf of the ~etitioher, - 
Inc. The G-28 that was submitted with the original 1-129, was also signed by the beneficiary (identified as 
"applicant"), and not by 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. 5 103.2(a)(3). 
As the beneficiary and her 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. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
I 
 It should be noted that, according to California state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in 
California has been "dissolved." Therefore, as the petitioner has voluntarily elected to wind-up its operations 
and has completely dissolved its business as a corporation, the company no longer exists and can no longer be 
considered a legal entity in the United States. Therefore, as this clearly and unequivocally renders the 
petitioner ineligible for the classification sought, the issues raised on appeal are moot.