dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive Distribution

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 1 4 2006 
SRC 01 089 53098 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 fiuther inquiry must be made to that office. 
i 
/---:- '6- 
Robextl?. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner was incorporated in 1999 in the State of Florida. In a letter dated December 18, 2000, the 
petitioner claimed that it has been and would continue to engage in the business of distributing imported cars 
and car parts. It seeks to hire the beneficiary as its marketing manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors 
to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1153@)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The record shows that various inquiries were conducted in regard to the petition based on the suspicion that 
fraud had been perpetrated in the filing of the petition on behalf of the beneficiary. More specifically, a 
Memorandum of Investigation indicates that whose purported signature on several of the 
petitioner's documents suggests that he has signatory powers within the petitioning entity, was contacted by 
an Intelligence Research Specialist in regard to various L-1A visa petitions that were purportedly filed by the 
petitioner on behalf of various beneficiaries. 
On January 16, 2002, the Texas Service Center received, via fax, the beneficiary's notice withdrawing the 
1-140 petition that had been filed by the petitioner on his behalf. The notice was signed by the beneficiary, 
not by a representative of the petitioning entity. 
On January 22, 2002, the director issued a notice of his intent to deny the petition. The director cited the 
various factual inconsistencies and other indications of fraud, which indicate that the petition did not warrant 
approval at the time of filing. The director also quoted the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.5(b)(6) regarding 
withdrawal of petitions and pointed out that only "[aln applicant or petitioner may withdraw an application or 
petition . . ." adding emphasis to the words "applicant" and "petitioner." 
Although the petitioner was granted a period of 30 days in which to respond to the notice of intent to deny, 
the record indicates that the petitioner failed to reply to any of the allegations brought forth by the director. 
Accordingly, the director denied the petition on April 26, 2004. The director repeated the various indicators 
of fraud as stated earlier in the notice of intent to deny and stated that the withdrawal request was invalid, as it 
originated with the beneficiary, who had no standing to request a withdrawal. 
On appeal, counsel vehemently asserts that the director has no jurisdiction to issue a denial on a petition that 
was withdrawn prior to the issuance of the denial and instructs the AAO to invoke the doctrine of collateral 
estoppel in precluding the director from issuing a denial in this matter. In support of this request, counsel 
refers to a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) case where the BIA instructed the district director to 
withdraw his denial of the petition in light of the petitioner's prior request to withdraw its petition. Counsel 
urges the AAO to follow the precedent set in the BIA's decision. See Matter of Cintron, 16 I&N 9 (BIA 
1976). While counsel is correct in stating that the AAO is bound by BIA published decisions, the facts in the 
cited precedent decision clearly indicate that the petitioner, not the beneficiary, withdrew the petition. Thus, 
there was no issue over whether or not the withdrawing party had standing to withdraw the petition. The 
petitioner in the cited case clearly filed the withdrawal pursuant to the requirements of 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(b)(6). 
To the contrary, the withdrawal in the instant matter was filed by the beneficiary. Unlike the withdrawal 
request filed on behalf of the beneficiary's withdrawal request was not filed by someone 
with signatory powers within the petitioning entity. 
Page 3 
Counsel asserts that the director should have informed the petitioner of the improper filing instead of 
remaining silent and later denying the petition. However, there is no statute or regulation that requires 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to respond to a request made by a person who has no standing in 
a matter pending before it. Therefore, counsel's assertions are without merit. The director's decision to reject 
the withdrawal request as improperly filed will be upheld. 
Although the director cited a number of factual discrepancies that lead to a finding of fraud, the petitioner did 
not address these issues in any way that would explain or reconcile the considerable inconsistencies. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, 
of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support 
of the visa petition. Id. In the instant matter, CIS has issued an RFE and a decision denying the petition. In 
both instances, the petitioner was informed of the various inconsistencies that lead CIS to doubt the veracity 
of the petitioner's claim regarding the beneficiary's eligibility for classification as a multinational manager or 
executive. The petitioner has not, however, submitted any evidence to overcome the director's grounds for 
denying the petition. Accordingly, this petition cannot be approved, and the director's decision to deny the 
petition will be upheld. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.