dismissed L-1A Case: Vending Machines

dentifying data deku tu 
vent dearly unwa4 
IQSkm of w in dprlVBEY 
PUBWC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 04 153 52502 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
NOV 2 8 2005 
IN RE: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
1 
Administrative ~~~eals bffice 
SRC 04 153 52502 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, 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. tj 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A). 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to extend the employment of its director as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. tj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Florida corporation that claims to be engaged the operation of 
vending machines. The petitioner claims that it is a subsidiary of Distribuidora Relsom Cars, C.A., located in 
Caracas, Venezuela. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay in L-1A status in order to 
open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status for a three-year 
period. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Counsel subsequently filed the instant appeal and indicated on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, that she 
represents the beneficiary. The Forms G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, that were 
submitted with the 1-129 petition and on appeal were signed by the beneficiary in his personal capacity. The 
beneficiary did not indicate that she was signing as an authorized representative of the petitioner, and the 
petitioner is not named on the Form G-28 or Form I-290B. Thus, the record clearly shows that counsel is 
representing the beneficiary, not 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 this proceeding. 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary and his representative are not recognized parties, counsel is not authorized 
to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.