dismissed L-1B Case: Electronics Design

, 
 identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personat privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 08 107 51026 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 0 3 2008 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
COURTESY COPY MAILED TO: 
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. Wiernann, Chief 
ministrative Appeals Office 
* 
4 
, WAC 08 107 51026 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 as 
improperly filed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1B nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, an electronics design company, claims 
to be an affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer, Silicon & Software Systems Polska Sp.z.o.o., located 
in Wroclaw, Poland. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a systems analyst for a period of two 
years. 
The director denied the petition on two separate grounds. Citing to the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004, the 
director concluded that the beneficiary, who will be stationed at a worksite of an unaffiliated employer, will 
be employed in a position which is essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for that employer, 
Qualcomm, Inc., rather than a placement involving the provision of a product or service for which specialized 
knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is necessary. Section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. The director 
further found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be controlled and supervised 
principally by the petitioning company while employed at the unaffiliated employer's worksite and, therefore, 
has not satisfied the requirements of Section 214(c)(2)(F)(i) of the Act. 
A representative for the petitioner, who is identified on several documents in the record as an "expatriate 
consultant," filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on May 27, 2008. The Form I-290B was 
signed by the representative, and accompanied by a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 
Representative. On the Form G-28, the representative marked that she is neither an attorney nor an accredited 
representative with a recognized religious, charitable, social service or similar organization, but rather "acting 
as a representative at the request of [the petitioner]." 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations specifically limit the filing of an appeal to an 
affected party (the person or entity with legal standing) andlor to the party's attorney or representative 
authorized pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 292. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). In this matter, although the petition 
is accompanied by a Form G-28, the representative has not established that she is a licensed attorney or an 
accredited representative authorized to undertake representations on the petitioner's behalf. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
292.1. Accordingly, the representative's appearance will not be recognized, and the appeal filed by the 
unauthorized representative in this matter must be considered as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 9 
103.3(a)(2)(v>(A)(2)(i). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.