dismissed L-1A Case: Wholesale Distribution

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 08 001 50576 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 WOV 032008 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 10 l(a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 001 50576 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Vermont 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. 
The petitioner claims that it is operating as a wholesaler and distributor of cell phones, phone cards, and cell 
phone accessories. It filed this nonimmigrant new office petition seehng authorization to employ the 
beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president, pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based 
on the following independent conclusions: (1) the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the petitioner failed to establish that 
it would support the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
The claimed counsel for the petitioner, 
 filed the I-290B in this matter. The appeal was 
timely filed and accompanied by the required fee and Entry of 
(Form G-28) in which 
 identified his firm's name as 
indicated that the basis for his entry of appearance on behalf of the petitioner is that he functions as a 
consultant, agent and/or representative, who is entitled to file various immigration forms before U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). However, the AAO has conducted a further review of Mr. 
qualifications and has discovered that 
 is not an accredited representative of an 
organization that is recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals under 8 C.F.R. 3 292.2. In addition, Mr. 
has further failed to establish that he is an attorney as defined at 8 C.F.R. 3 l.l(f). Based on the 
foregoing, 
 has failed to demonstrate that he is authorized under 8 C.F.R. fj 292.1 to enter his 
appearance on behalf of the petitioner and file the present appeal. 
The regulations specifically prohibit the filing of an appeal by a person or entity not entitled to file it. 8 C.F.R. 
8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). As is not an authorized representative, he is not authorized to file an 
appeal, and it must therefore be rejected as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I); 8 C.F.R. 
3 lO3.3(a)(2>(v)(A>(2)(i). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.