remanded EB-1A Case: Unknown

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
0-L 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: QM 1 2 
EAC 05 125 51351 
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. 3 1 153(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved in error by the 
Director, Vermont Service Center. On further review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner 
was not eligible for the benefit sought. On October 28, 2005, the director incorrectly issued a notice of 
"intent to deny" and subsequently revoked the approval of the petition on January 5,2006. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The decision of the director will be withdrawn and 
the petition will be remanded for mer action. 
The Form 1-140 petition was approved in error by the Vermont Service Center on August 10, 2005. On 
October 28, 2005, the Vermont Service Center issued a notice informing the petitioner of its "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 issue a notice of intent to "revoke" rather 
than a notice of "intent to deny." There are specific standards for revoking immigrant petition approvals and 
nonimmigrant petition approvals. See 8 205 of the Act ("good and sufficient cause"); 8 C.F.R. $tj 214,2(h) or 
(1) ("gross error7' 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," "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. tj 1155, 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 petitioner's 
failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of 
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)(citingMatter of Estime, 1'9 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and suscient 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." 
Page 3 
In the present case, our review of the record indicates that the director's initial approval of the petition on August 
10, 2005 was erroneous. The evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to establish that she meets any of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5@)(3). Therefore, we find that good and sufficient cause exists to initiate 
revocation proceedings. While we agree with the director's October 28, 2005 and January 5, 2006 notices 
indicating that the evidence of record fails 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. 8 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, regardless of 
outcome, is to be certified to the AAO for review.