remanded EB-1A Case: Not Specified

QBBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 1 7 2005 
WAC 01 129 55679 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
,/ B Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
( Administrative Appeals Ofice 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, 
California Service Center. On the basis of further review of the record, the director determined that the 
petitioner was not eligible for the benefit sought. The director then reopened the case on service motion and 
ultimately denied the petition on July 22, 2004. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
T(AAO) on appeal. The decision of the director will be withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for hrther 
action.' 
The Form 1-1 40 petition was approved by the California Service Center on October 1 1, 2001. Or1 April 13, 
2004, the California Service Center issued a notice informing the petitioner of its motion to reopen and intent 
to deny the approved 1-140 petition. Once the director decides to reverse the decision on an approved 
immigrant or nonimmigrant petition, however, the proper course of action is to "revoke" the approval and not 
reopen on service motion and deny. There are specific standards for revoking immigrant petition approvals 
and nonimmigrant petition approvals. See 9 205 of the Act ("good and sufficient cause"); 8 C.F.R. $9 
214.2(h) or (1) ("gross error" or other standards). If the director does not satisfy the legally-mandated 
requirements to revoke an approval by issuing a notice of intent to revoke for "good and sufficient cause," 
c b 
gross error," or any other required standard, the approval is not properly revoked. The director may only 
issue a service motion to reopen and intent to deny for certain applications for immigration benefits, such as a 
Form 1-539, Application for Change of Status or Extension of Stay; a Form 1-90? application to replace a 
permanent resident card; or a Form 1-765, application for work authorization. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 11 55, states: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for 
what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under 
section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of 
Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, . . . this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is properly 
issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if 
unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the petil.ioner7s 
failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of 
1 Although the petitioner has an October 31, 2001 Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 
Representative, on file indicating that she is represented by an attorney, the AAO notes that the petitioner's attorney 
resigned from the California State Bar Association with charges pending on June 13, 2002. According to the California 
State Bar Association, the petitioner's attorney "stipulated to misconduct in 38 consolidated immigration cases." See 
California State Bar Association website, htt~:llmembers.calbar.ca.~ov/search/member detail.asgx?x=75851- (accessed 
November 16,2005). 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(3) specifies that a petitioner may be represented "by an attorney in the United 
States, as defined in $ I .l(f) of this chapter, by an attorney outside the United States as defined in $ 292.l(a)(6) of this 
chapter, or by an accredited representative as defined in 292.1(a)(4) of this chapter." The individual listed on the 
Form G-28 signed by the petitioner does not meet any of these requirements. Subsequent to his resignation, this 
individual prepared the petitioner's immigration appeal and submitted responses to service center notices in her behalf, 
and otherwise continued to provide legal services in immigration matters before Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
record at the time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the 
petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient cause for the 
issuance of a notice of intent to revoke an immigrant petition. Matter of Ho. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step in the 
visa application process. The beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant 
visa. Id. at 582. In Matter of Ho, the Board found that because "there is no right or entitlement to be lost, the 
burden of proof in visa petition revocation proceedings properly rests with the petitioner, just as it does in visa 
petition proceedings." 
In the present case, based on the observations provided in the director's notices of April 13, 2004 arrd July 22, 
2004, we find that good and sufficient cause exists to initiate revocation proceedings. While we agree with the 
director that the evidence of record is not adequate to demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit 
sought, the director did not properly serve the petitioner with a notice of intent to revoke the approval of her 
immigrant visa petition. Therefore, this matter will be remanded. The director should issue a notice of intent to 
revoke and allow the petitioner the opportunity to respond to that notice within a reasonable period of time. As 
always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
9 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further action 
in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision, which, if adverse to the petitioner, 
is to be certified to the AAO for review.