dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate And Investment

U.S. Department of Bomelsnd Security 
20 Massachusetts A*., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 04 164 53962 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOv 10 Z005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 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. 
g--+l 
Ro ert P. Wiemann, Dir tor 
dministrative Appeals Office 
( 
SRC 04 164 53962 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center denied the nonirnmigrant 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. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that claims to be engaged in real estate and investment services. It 
seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its president as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany 
transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
9 I lOl(a)(lS)(L). The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
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 Representqtive, that were 
submitted with the 1-129 petition and on appeal were signed by the beneficiary in his personal capacity. The 
beneficiary did not indicate that he 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. 
5 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary and his representative are not recognized parties, counsel is not authorized 
to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 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)(I). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
1 Although the appeal will be rejected, the AAO notes that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 
records indicate that the beneficiary in this case is also the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition, 
filed by the same employer, and has adjusted status to that of a permanent resident as of May 9,2005. While 
the appeal in this proceeding has not been withdrawn, it would appear that the immigrant petition was 
approved subsequent to the filing of the appeal, and the beneficiary is presently a permanent resident. 
Accordingly the issues in this proceeding are moot.