dismissed L-1A Case: Property Management

identifyingdata delet~ to '
preventclearlyunwarranted
jnv~ion ofper.ooa1ptiv~~
.\J;§i:pepartmentljf .I:Iolllela.nd Se¢~ri~y'
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A300 0
Washi,nglon, DC 2 0529
u~s. Citizenship
and Immigranon
Services
i .
File: SRC 0508551424 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ' riAR 062007
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary :
Petition: . Petitionfor a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a )(15)(L) ofthe Immigration
and Nationality Act , 8 U.S.c. § .1101(a)(15)(L)
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER :
r
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All document s have been returned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further.inquiry must be made to that office., .
.~
Robert P . Wiemann , Chief
A4rhinistnitive Appeals Offic e '
.''--
SRC 05 085 51424'
Page 2
DISCUSSION: ' The Director of the, Texas Service Center denied the~~ni~migrant visa petition and the
matter is now before the Admi~istrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal,"The appeal will be rejected
pursuant to 8 ~.F.R . § '}03.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l}
The pet itioner ' Is a Florida corporation ~ allegedly engaged ' in the business of'property management. The
petitioner seeks to extend the employment of the benefic iary as its president as an L-IA ' nonimmigrant
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)(l5)(L) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (the Act) , 8
U.S.c.§ .i101(a)(l 5)(L). The director denied the pet ition after concluding that the petitioner failed to
establish that the beneficiary '.'rillbe employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity.
On November 28, 2005 , the beneficiary filed a Form I-290B:with the service center purporting to appeal the
decision of the director dated October 31, 2005. The beneficiary did not indicate thathe was signing the
Form I-290B on ' behalf'.of th~ p~titioner. Therefore, it must be concluded that the beneficiary filed the Form
I-290B, and not the petitioner. ..Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations specifically prohibit a
beneficiary of a visa,petition 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 is not a recognized party , he is not authorized to
file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B).1 . '
A~ the appeal wa; not properly .filed, it will be rejected . 8:C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).
ORDER . , The appeal is rejected.
< ,
,lIt must be noted that, in the Fo~I-290B and in the attachment thereto, the 'beneficiary gave as ' a reason for
, the appeal -his omission of certain' evidence from the record. He also seeks to offer that evidence on appeal.
Si~ce 8'C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires the AAO to summaril y dismiss an appealwhen the appellant fails to
identify 'specifically any erroneous conclusion of'law or statement of fact, the AAO would be obligated to '
summarily dismiss the current appeal if the appeal were not being rejected. The beneficiary did not identify
any erroneous conclusion , of Iaw or statement of fact for the appeal. The petitioner's failure to provide
evidence supporting its petitionis not a valid basis for an appeal.