SANO

                                                        Interim Decision #2999




                             MATTER OF SANO

                        In Visa Petition Proceedings

                                   A-23114185

                     Decided by Board October 29, 1985

(1) An appeal from the denial or revocation of a visa petition may be filed only by
  the petitioner.
(2) Since the appellate jurisdiction of the Board of Immigration Appeals is defined
  by the regulations set forth in 

(b) (1985), the Board has no jurisdiction over a particular matter unless it has been affirmatively granted by the regulations.
(3) Under 

(bX5) (1985), the Board's authority to review decisions on visa
   petitions is limited to that accorded by Part 204 of the regulations, which provides
  only for an appeal by the petitioner.
(4) Since the Board's jurisdiction over decisions on visa petitions is limited to appeals by the petitioner, the Board lacks jurisdiction to address an appeal by the
  beneficiary from the denial of a visa petition. Matter of Varela, 

   (BIA 1970), modified.
(5) The regulation at 

(c) (1985), which grants the Board power to certify
   cases, permits certification only to matters within the Board's appellate jurisdiction as set forth in 

(b) (1985).
(8) Since the Board lacks authority to review an appeal by a beneficiary from the
   denial of a visa petition, such an appeal also may not be reviewed upon certification. Matter of Arteaga-Godoy, 14 I&N Dee. 226 (BIA 1972), overruled.
ON BEHALF OF BENEFICIARY:                           ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
 William F. Thompson III, Esquire                     Terry A. Smith
 Blackfield Hawaii Building                           General Attorney
 1221 Kapiolani Blvd., Penthouse Suite
 Honolulu, Hawaii 96814


BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members



   The United States citizen petitioner, now deceased, filed a visa
petition on behalf of the beneficiary to accord her immediate relative status as his spouse on May 24, 1983_ The petition was not approved by the time of the petitioner's death on September 14, 1983,
and was therefore denied by the district director in a decision
dated December 1, 1983. The beneficiary, through counsel, has ap-

                                          299
Interim Decision #2999

pealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
    On appeal the beneficiary argues that she should be accorded immediate relative status because the Immigration and Naturalization Service unreasonably delayed adjudication of the visa petition.
She claims that such actions constitute affirmative misconduct,
which warrants a grant of the petition. The Service contends that
the beneficiary has no right to appeal the district director's decision following the death of the petitioner and that, in any case, the
beneficiary's estoppel argument is without merit.
   We must first address the question of the beneficiary's standing
to pursue this appeal. According to the regulation at 

(a)(3) (1985), when the district director renders a decision denying a visa petition, the "petitioner will be notified of the decision
. . . and of the petitioner's right to appeal to the Board. . . ." See
also 

(d)(4) (1985). In interpreting this regulation the
Board has determined that an appeal from the denial of a visa petition may be filed only by the petitioner. See Mutter of DaBaase, 

 (BIA 1979); Matter of Kurys, 

 (BIA
1965); see also Matter of Anabo, 

 (BIA 1981); Matter
of Arteaga-Godoy, 

 (BIA 1972); lA C. anrdon & a
Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 3.5h (rev. ed. 1985).
We have likewise held that only the petitioner can appeal from the
revocation of a previously approved visa petition. Matter of C-, 

 (BIA 1962); see also 

(b) (1985). Judicial
opinion has been in accord. See Joseph v. Landon, 

 (7th
Cir. 1982); Scalzo v. Harney, 

 (E.D. Pa. 1963), Nerd
per curiam, 

 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 

(1965); see also Wright v. INS, 

 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,

 (1967); Pacheco Pereira v. INS, 

 (1st Cir.
1965). But see Horn Sin v. Esperdy, 

 (S.D.N.Y. 1965).
   The beneficiary asserts that the Board can assume jurisdiction
upon certification pursuant to 

(c) (1985) to avoid the
question of the beneficiary's standing to appeal and requests that
we do so in this case. She cites our decision in Matter of Varela, 

 (BIA 1970), where the Board considered a similar
appeal by a beneficiary following the petitioner's death. In that
case we noted the question of standing but proceeded to decide the
issue presented on its merits. We have also previously accepted jurisdiction upon certification to circumvent the issue of the beneficiary's lack of standing. Matter of Artpaga Codoy, supra. We now
                                              -


find our review in those cases to have been inappropriate.
   As we recently stated in Matter of Zaidan, 

 BIA
1985), the Board's appellate jurisdiction is defined by the regula-
                                 300
                                             Interim Decision #2999

tions set forth in 

(b) (1985). Unless the regulations affirmatively grant us power to act in a particular matter, we have
no appellate jurisdiction over it. Matter of Sum, 

(BIA 1968). Under 

(b)(5) (1985), an appeal will lie to
the Board from "[d]ecisions on petitions filed in accordance with
section 204 of the act . . . as provided in Parts 204 and 205, respectively, of this chapter." (Emphasis added.) As we have noted, the
regulations in Part 204 provide solely for an appeal to the Board by
the petitioner. See 

(a)(3) (1985). Inasmuch as the
only authority accorded to the Board by the regulations under Part
204 relates to appe-als by the petitioner, we find that our jurisdiction. is limited to such appeals. We therefore conclude that we lack
jurisdiction to address an appeal by the beneficiary from the denial
of a visa petition. CI Matter of Zaidan, supra. To the extent that
our decision in Matter of Varela, supra, conflicts with this conclusion, it is hereby modified.
   Since we have not been granted authority by the regulations to
review the beneficiary's appeal, we are also unable to assume jurisdiction over the matter by certification. The regulation that gives
us the power to certify cases permits certification only to matters
within our appellate jurisdiction as set forth in 

(b)
(1985). See 

(c) (1985); Matter of Vrettakos, 

 (BIA 1973, 1974). Inasmuch as the Board lacks authority to
review an appeal by a beneficiary from the district director's denial
of a visa petition, we conclude that we are likewise precluded from
certifying such a case. To the extent that Matter of Arteaga-Godoy,
supra, is contrary, it is overruled.
  Accordingly, the beneficiary's appeal will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
   As the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal,
   IT IS ORDERED: that the record of proceedings be returned
to the local office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
without further action.