PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
RejectedEB-2 · Appeal

Occupation not stated

Law & policy · decided 2013-02-27 · NSC · FEB272013_03B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

What the AAO decided

  • The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R .. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(J). See in text
  • ORDER: The appeal is rejected. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (2)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. <:;itizcnship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (i\i\0) 20 MassachusctL~ Ave ., N.W .. MS 20110 Washington, DC 20529 -2090 ' U.S. Citizenship . and Immigration Services · Date: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: FEB 2 7 2013 · IN RE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: · PETITION: immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a M!!mber of the Professions Holding an Advanced

    Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(11)(2) of the Immigration ami Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) · ·

    ON BEHALf;' OF PETITIONER : -

    INSTRUCTIONS:

    Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. All or the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he . advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. Thank you, aw Ron Rosenberg

    Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov

    DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, revoked the approval of the employment­ based immigrant visa petition. ·Counsel to the beneficiary appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office

    (AAO). The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R .. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(J).

    The petitioner described itself as an IT services company. It sought to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as an IT manager pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, a labor certification accompanied the petition. The director determined that the job offer was not valid. The director revoked the approval of the petition accordingly.

    The record of proceeding contains a properly executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, for the beneficiary's representative. On appeal, counsel states that he represents the beneficiary, not the petitioner; The Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, I , was signed by the beneficiary's attorney. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) regulations specifically prohibit a beneficiary of a visa petition, or a representative acting on a beneficiary's behalf, from filing an appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). No evidence suggests that the petitioner consented to the filing of the appeal.

    As the· appeal was not properly filed, it will be r~jected. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(J). ORDER: The appeal is rejected.