dismissed L-1A

dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Retail

Decision Summary

The appeal was rejected on procedural grounds, not on its merits. The AAO determined that the appeal was improperly filed because it was submitted by the beneficiary, who is not a recognized party in the proceeding, instead of the petitioner.

Criteria Discussed

Qualifying Relationship Managerial Or Executive Capacity Proper Filing Of Appeal

Sign up free to download the original PDF

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. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.