dismissed
L-1A
dismissed L-1A Case: Retail
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the case. The AAO determined the appeal was improperly filed because the attorney represented the beneficiary, who is not a recognized party with standing to file an appeal. Per regulations, only the petitioner can file an appeal.
Criteria Discussed
Qualifying Relationship Managerial Or Executive Capacity Proper Filing Of Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 Washington, DC 20529 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration File: WAC-04-027-51 8 18 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 18 2@5 Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 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. Administrative Appeals Office WAC-04-027-5 18 18 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. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). The petitioner intends to operate a retail home furnishings store and other enterprises. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its operations manager, and has petitioned to classify the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that: (1) it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; and (2) the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, that was submitted on appeal was 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 anywhere on the Form G-28. Thus, the document 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. 8 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). ORDER: The appeal is rejected.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.