dismissed L-1A Case: Therapeutic Massage

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN-02-029-50974 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JuL 1 8 ZUU~ 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
3~ 
 . -.. L.f 
Robert P. Wiernann, 6hief 
\ Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN-02-029-50974 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The director of the Nebraska Service Center initially approved the nonirnmigrant visa 
petition. Upon further review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was not eligible for the 
benefit sought. Accordingly, the director served the petitioner and counsel with a notice of his intention to 
revoke the approval of the petition and his reasons therefore. After the petitioner failed to submit a timely 
response, the director revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
The petitioner claims to be engaged in the therapeutic massage and body wrap business. It seeks employment 
of its chief executive officer 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. 8 1 101 (a)(l5)(L). 
Based on further review of the record, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval on March 3, 
2003. The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be primarily 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity or that the petitioner has been doing 
business as that term is defined in the regulations. After the petitioner failed to respond to the notice of intent 
to revoke, the director revoked the approval of the petition on May 12,2003. 
The AAO notes that the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, was filed by the beneficiary. There was no 
indication that the beneficiary filed the appeal as an authorized representative of the petitioner rather than on 
his own behalf. 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. 8 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary is not a 
recognized party, he 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. 8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.