dismissed
L-1A
dismissed L-1A Case: Vending Machines
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the case. The AAO determined that the appeal was improperly filed because the attorney on record represented the beneficiary, not the petitioner company. Per regulations, the beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized party and therefore lacks the standing to file an appeal.
Criteria Discussed
Managerial Or Executive Capacity Proper Filing Of Appeal Standing Of Beneficiary
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
US. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 Washington, DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services File: SRC 04 153 52502 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ~0y 2 8 za)5 Petition: Petitlon for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L) IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Th~s IS the decis~on of the Administrative Appeals Office m your case. All documents have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inqulry must be made to that office. k= Administrative Appeals Office SRC 04 1.53 52502 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Servlce Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petit~on and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. ยง 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 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. ยง 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Florida corporati vending machines. The petitioner claims that it is a subsidiary o ~aracas, Venezuela. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay in L-IA 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 directoi denied the pitition, 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 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. ' . 3 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary. and his representative are not recognized parties, counsel is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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)(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.