dismissed
L-1A
dismissed L-1A Case: Security Services And Import/Export
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 it was submitted by counsel for the beneficiary, and regulations state that a beneficiary is not a recognized party who can file an appeal.
Criteria Discussed
Doing Business In The United States Managerial Or Executive Capacity Standing To 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 Muss Ave.. N.W.. kn. A3042 Washington. 13C 20529 &d4Cg-dyd&P U.S. Citizenship and Immigration mt-y u-ted Services brdmdponorbrhrq -ccOPy File: SRC 04 236 53 199 Office: TEXAS SERVlCE CENTER Date: OEC 2 a,, Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) IN BEHALF OF BENEFICIARY: INSTRUCTIONS: This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. AII documents have been retuned to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. i / +- Robert I? Wiernann, Director Administrative Appeals Office SRC 04 236 53 199 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The Director of the Texas 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. $ 103,3(a)(2)(v)(A). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Florida, which is engaging in the security services and import export wholesale business. It seeks to extend the employment of its managing director as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(aj(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after determining that the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that it is currently doing business in the United States, or that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The AAO notes that on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, as we11 as on the Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, that was submitted on appeal, counsel indicated that he represents the individual named as the beneficiary. The Form G-28 was signed by the beneficiary, apparently in his individual capacity and not as 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. ยง 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary and his representative are not recognized parties, counsel is not authorized to file an appeaI. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(I j(i ii)(B). As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(vj(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.