dismissed L-1A Case: Retail Investment

-d.h-te 
PmVeat ckarjy unw- 
ismfia of mmrl 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 03 236 5041 1 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN () 1 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l S)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF BENEFICIARY: 
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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 236 5041 1 
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. 
The petitioner claims that it is operating as a retail investment business. It filed this nonimmigrant petition 
seeking to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president, 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 
1 101 (a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the following independent conclusions: (1) the 
petitioner had not established that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; 
(2) there is no qualifying relationship between the foreign organization and the petitioner; and (3) the foreign 
organization is not doing business as defined by regulation. 
Counsel for the beneficiary, 
 , filed the I-290B in this matter. Although it was timely filed and 
accompanied by the required fee, the Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative (Form G-28) that 
was submitted was signed by the beneficiary, not by an authorized representative of 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. $ 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary and his representative are 
not recognized parties, counsel is not authorized to file an appeal, and it must therefore be rejected as 
improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l); 8 C.F.R. 5 
1 03.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(2)(i). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
I 
 It is noted for the record that, while the beneficiary does appear to have been an agent for the petitioner, 
there is no evidence in the record that the beneficiary was legally authorized to sign as a representative on 
behalf of the petitioner with regard to the appeal before the AAO. Specifically, the Form G-28 submitted by 
counsel clearly limits his representatiodappearance to the beneficiary, and nowhere on the form is it indicated 
that the beneficiary is acting on behalf of the petitioner.