dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Department of Homeland SeeuFtty 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washmgton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: - SRC 05 075 50414 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CEITIER Date: )(OV 3 0 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(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 case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
* --,T+----- 
w 
L 
Robert lemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 075 50414 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeaI. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(Z)(v)(A)(l). 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation allegedly engaged in the business of operating a retail store.' The 
petitioner seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its president as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On July 18, 2005, the beneficiary filed a Form I-290B with the service center purporting to appeal the 
decision of the director dated June 13,2005. The beneficiary did not indicate that she was signing the Form I- 
290B on behalf of the petitioner. 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, 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. 3 103.2(a)(3). As the 
beneficiary is not a recognized party, she 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. § 10?.3(a)(2)(v)(~)(l).~ 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
'It should be noted that according to both the organizational materials provided by the petitioner and Florida 
state corporate records, the name of the petitioner is Tip Tops Gifts, Inc. It should also be noted that 
according to Florida state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in Florida was "administratively 
dissolved" on September 15, 2006. Therefore, since the corporation may not cany on any business except 
that necessary to wind up and liquidate its affairs, and the petitioner has not taken steps under Florida law to 
seek reinstatement, the company can no longer be considered a legal entity in the United States. See Fla. Stat. 
607.1421 (2006). Therefore, as this clearly and unequivocally renders the petitioner ineligible for the 
classification sought, the petition could not be approved for this reason if it were not being rejected. 
2 
It must be noted that the brief and supporting evidence submitted in support of the beneficiary's appeal were 
submitted by Coptic Orthodox Charities, Inc., and not by the beneficiary or the petitioner. Not only was a 
Form G-28 not submitted for Coptic Orthodox Charities, Inc., the record fails to establish that this 
organization falls within any of the categories of representatives authorized by the regulations to represent 
affected parties. Therefore, even if this appeal were not being rejected, the AAO would be required to 
summarily dismiss this appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). This regulation obligates "the party 
concerned," or an authorized attorney or representative, to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal. Since Coptic Orthodox Charities, Inc. is not the party concerned and 
is not an authorized attorney or representative, the brief and supporting evidence submitted by this 
organization cannot be used to meet the affected party's obligation of identifying specifically an erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact.