dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

identimng dda deleted to 
pvent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 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 case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
LC. - 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 1 12 50452 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(1). 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its 
executive manager as an L- 1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a corporation 
organized under the laws of the State of Florida, claims to be a retailer of rawhide products. The director 
denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed 
primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. 
The record shows tha 
 filed the appeal on behalf of the petitioner as a "representative" using the 
petitioner's letterhead. m Mr ubmitted an entry of appearance (Form G-28) on behalf of the petitioner 
not as an attorney or accredited representative, but as the petitioner's "authorized representative." The record 
does not identify Mr 
 an employee, officer, or director of the petitioner. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(3) specifies that a petitioner may be represented "by an attorney in the 
United States, as defined in tj 1 .l(f) of this chapter, by an attorney outside the United States as defined in 5 
292.1(a)(6) of this chapter, or by an accredited representative as defined in 5 292.1(a)(4) of this chapter." 8 
C.F.R. tj 292.1(a)(3) also permits reputable individuals to represent a petitioner in certain circumstances. An 
accredited representative is defined in 8 C.F.R. 5 292.1(a)(4) as a representative of an organization described 
in 8 C.F.R. tj 292.2, which, in turn, states that only non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar 
organizations recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals may be so classified. 
In this case, the record fails to establish that Mr 
 falls within any of the categories of representatives 
authorized by immigration regulations to file an 
 behalf of the petitioner. The record does not reveal 
that he is an "accredited representative" and does not include those materials necessary to permit Mr. 
to represent the petitioner as a "reputable individual." The fact that ~rcluded a cover 
the appeal using the petitioner's letterhead does not allow him to act as an "authorized representative" of the 
petitioner. 
"An appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled to file it must be rejected as improperly filed." 8 C.F.R. $ 
lO3.3(a>(2)(v)(A)(l>. 
Therefore, as Mr 
 is not entitled and not authorized to represent the petitioner in this matter, the 
appeal must be filed.' 
1 
It should be noted that 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires an officer to whom an appeal is taken to summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. In this matter, the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous 
SRC 05 1 12 50452 
Page 3 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected. 
conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding. Therefore, the appeal would be summarily 
dismissed if it were not being rejected for the reasons given in this decision.