dismissed
L-1A
dismissed L-1A Case: Security Services
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected on procedural grounds because it was filed by the beneficiary, not the petitioner. Under regulations, the beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized party and therefore lacks the authority to file an appeal. As the appeal was not properly filed, it was rejected without a review of the merits of the case.
Criteria Discussed
Standing To File An Appeal Doing Business For One Year
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. A3000 Washington, DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration File: SRC 05 014 50286 IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: 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 BENEFICIARY: 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. &ert P. Wiemann, Chief Administrative Appeals Office SRC 05 014 50286 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. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). The petitioner seeks to extend the temporary employment of the beneficiary as its president in the United States as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 llOl(a)(l5)(L). The U.S. petitioner, a corporation Florida, provides security services and claims to be the subsidiary of = located in Barquisimeto, State of Lara, Venezuela. The director denied the petition did not establish that it had been doing business for the previous year as required by the regulations. The appeal in this matter was filed by the beneficiary, not by the petitioner or an authorized representative thereof. 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 filed the Form I-290B as a representative of the petitioner with regard to the appeal before the AAO. 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 is not a recognized party, the beneficiary is not authorized to file an appeal, and it must therefore be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B); 8 C.F.R. $103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 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.