dismissed L-1A Case: Roofing Contractor

PUBLICcOPY"
identifying'datadeletedto
. prevent Cj\7;3.r\y LrlViarranted
itwasionofpt;;rsonalpnvacy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: EAC 07 Oi8 51041 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 4 2007
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition:
COpy TO:
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision ofthe Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have b~en re~med to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office ..
' ..
~hief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
.i
J
EAC07 018 51041
Page 2
, .
DISCUSSION: The Director , Vermont Service Center , denied thepetition for' a nonimmigrant v~sa. The
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected
pursuantto 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).
The petitioner is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Florida. The petitioner's business is
described in the Form 1-129 as "roofing contractor and related services ." The petition seeks the extension of
the beneficiary's employment as the petitioner's general manager as an L-l A non immigrant intracompany
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 , V.S .c. §
1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after c~~cluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the
beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial capacity.
An appeal was subsequently filed on January ' 3; 2007 . The Form I~290B was signed by Mr. '
_ also signed a letter dated December 26, 2006 .appended to the Form 1~290B in which he identifies
himself as "corporate officer." _ is described as the "president" of the petitioner in both the Form 1­
907 'and in the letter dated October 18, 2006, Which,was appended to the initial petition. However , upon a
'review of the corporate records ,o( the State of Florida , specifically the Articles ofAmendment to Articles of
Incorporation and the petitioner's 2006 and 2007 annual reports , MT._ceased to be the "president" of the
, petitioner on February 28, 2006. ' " '
. "
Because it appeared that Mr._ no longer had the authority to file the instant' appeal , the AAO issued a '
Notice of Consideration of Derogatory Information pursuant to ,8 C.F .R § 103.2(a) (16)(i). This Notice states '
in part that the AAO intends to reject the instant appeal because it "does not appearthat Mr._ was an
attorney or authorized representative of the petitioner as defined by the regulations" and , thus , lacked the
power to sign and file the Form 1-2~OBon behalf of the petitioner. ' The Notice' gave the petitioner 30 days to
rebutthis information and present information in support of this rebuttal. , ':
" ,
A response was received by the ,AAO on October 30, 2007. In the response, counsel asserts that, while Mr .
..... ceased acting as "president" of the petitioner on or about February 6, 2006, he remained an "authorized
representative" ofthe petitioner.' In support of this assertion, counsel submits a document titled "Notice and
Minutes of Annual Meeting of Shareholders of [the petitioner]." ParagraphZ of this' do~ument states that'
"Mr. _ will review all documentation pertaining to the company and is authorized to sign on, the
company's behalf." The document was signed by 0 as "president" of the petitioner.
'u is noted that the Fom G-28 d~ted October 19, 2007 purportedly authoriz ing counsel to represent the
petitioner is signed by. on behalf of the pe!itioner. As the AAO concludes that 2 is not
authorizedto represent thepetitioner (see infra) , he, consequently, lacks the authority to appoint counsel.
Therefore ,it would be appropriate for the AAO to reject counsel's response to the Notice of Consideration of
Derogatory Information just ' as it is rejecting the 'underl ying appeal.' : However , in order to fully consider
whether Mr. _ is an authorized representative of the petitioner, the AAO will consider counsel's reply to
the Notice and WIll copy her on the AAO's decision in this matter. These acts should not be construed as the
AAO's acknowledgment of Mr. authority to sign the Form G-28 appointing counsel on the petitioner 's
, behalf or the AAO's recognition of counsel as counsel to the petitioner.
EAC 07 018 51041
Page 3
Upon review, counsel's response to the Notice of Consideration of Derogatory Information is not persuasive
in establishing that_ had the authority as an "authorized representative" to file the instant appeal.
. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3) specifies that a petitioner may be represented "by an attorney in the
United States, as defined in. § l.1(f) of this chapter, by an attorney outside the United States as defined in §
292.1(a)(6) of this chapter, or by an accredited representative as defined in § 292.1 (a)(4) of this chapter."
Title 8 C.F.R. § 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. § 292.1(a)(4) as a representative of an
organization described in 8 C.F.R. § 292.2, which, in tum, 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 matter, the record fails-to establish that Mr. _ falls within any of the categories of representatives
authorized by the regulations to file an appeal on behalf of the petitioner. He. is not an attorney, alaw student,
a "reputable individual" (as defined in the regulations), or an "accredited representative." A petitioner may
not 'circumvent the regulations governing representation in immigration proceedings by appointing third
parties as "authorized representatives." As Mr. _is not a recognized party and is not a representative
entitled to represent the petitioner, he was not authorized to file the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).
As the appeal was filed by a person not entitled to file it, it must be rejected as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. §
103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.