dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

m 
, iidentgying data deleted to , 
prevent ellearly aanwarrqntd 
invasion of prsonal prikncgr 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.,N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
File: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: rE8 2008 
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. 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELFLREPRESENTED 
COURESTY COPY TO: 
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. 
. . 
,7 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, initially approved the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. Upon subsequent review, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke, and ultimately revoked 
approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) office shall be stamped to show the,time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, 
executed, and accompanied by the correct fee. FO; calculating the date of filing, the appeal shall be regarded 
as properly filed on the date that it is so stamped by the service center or district office. 
"-*I 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2(d) indicates that revocations of approvals must be appealed within 15 days 
after the service of the Notice of Revocatipn. The Notice ofiRevocation is dated August 3,2005. The Notice of 
Revocation also bears a datebstamp August 16, 2005. It is unclear whether the Notice of Revocation was mailed 
August 3, 2005 or August 16, 2005 or whether the August1 16, 2005 date stamp is unrelated to Notice of 
Revocation's mailing date. Giving the benefit of the inconsistency to the petitioner, the AAO will consider the 
appeal timely filed. 
The AAO observes that the director issued a notice of intent to revoke approval of the petition on April 18,2005 
to the petitioner's last known address. The notice of intent to revoke was returned as undeliverable on May 2, * 
2005. The August 3, 2005 revocation decision is also mailed30 the same last known address. The director 
determined in the Notice of Revocation that the petitioner had not &sponded to the notice of intent to revoke and 
had not proffered evidence establishing: that the petitioner and the foreign entity were qualifying entities; that the 
beneficiary had worked in a managerial or executive position for the foreign entity; that the beneficiary would 
work in a managerial or executive capacity for the U.S. petitioner; that both the U.S. petitioner and the foreign 
entity were conducting business, thus mai~taining the multinational quality of the organizations; or that the 
petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage. 
On the September 2, 2005, Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the petitioner states it will send a brief andlor 
evidence to the AAO within 30 days. The petitioner states on the Form I-290B that: 
The before evidence was not submit[t]ed as the notice arrived too late. I'll be sending the 
evidence and explanation within 30 days. 
The petitioner provides the following information on November 1,2005: 
(I) An October 4, 2005 g to be the president of the 
petitioner located at an address different from the 
petitioner's previous addresses, stating that a position as "manager" was still available to the 
beneficiary at $9.00 an hour; 
(2) A Florida Form UCT-6, Employer's Quarterly Report for the third quarter of 2005 showing 
that the petitioner employed the beneficiary and one other individual; 
(3) An October 28, 2005 letter &om the petitioner's accountants verifying that the beneficiary 
had earned a gross income of $14,040 as of September 30,2005; 
', ! 
Page 3 
I 
(4) Copies of minutes of the organization (the petitioner) dated January 10, 2005, March 10, 
2005, July 6,2005, and October 3,2005, showing that the beneficiary was a "director" of the 
petitioner; 
(5) A May 2,2005 certificate from the Florida Department of State certifying that the petitioner 
was active; 
ng to be the president of the petitioner 
indicating that the petitioner employed two 
individuals, the beneficiary in the position of general manager and a clerk. The letter also 
provided a brief description of the beneficiary's duties; and 
(7) A warranty deed dated October 13,2005 showing the petitioner as grantee. 
The AAO observes that generally, the director's decision to revoke the approval of a petition will be affirmed, 
notwithstanding the submission of evidence on appeal, where a petitioner fails to offer a timely explanation or 
rebuttal to a properly issued notice of intention to revoke. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 569 (BIA 
1988). 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1155, states: "The Attorney General 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 wairant a denial of the visa petition 
based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of profof. 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 ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,590 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter ofEstime, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
In this matter, based on the record, the director had good and sufficient cause to issue a notice of intent to 
revoke and so properly issued the notice of intent to revoke. The petitioner's failure to offer evidence to rebut 
the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the record, when put on notice, requires that the director's decision to 
revoke the approval of a petition be affirmed, notwithstanding the submission of information submitted on 
appeal. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: "An officer to whom an appeal is taken 
shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." 
The petitioner in this matter does not address its failure to respond to the director's decision to revoke 
approval. The record does not include any Jvidence that the petitioner notified Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) of its changes in address. Moreover, the petitioner did somehow receive notice of the intent to 
revoke and the revocation decision when mailed to the petitioner's address on record. The MO determines 
that the petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for 
the record before the revocation of approval of the visa petition. Thus, the MO will not consider the 
information submitted on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Of note, the information submitted on appeal, even if considered, is not 
sufficient to establish that the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer, 
that the foreign entity continued to conduct business, thus maintaining the multinational character of the 
petitioner, that the beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or executive capacity by the foreign entity 
or would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the U.S. petitioner, or that the petitioner has 
the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered annual wage of $30,000. 
The petitioner should note that a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Further, that 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. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. at 582. Finally, notwithstanding the CIS burden to show "good and sufficient cause" in ' 
proceedings . - to revoke the approval of a visa petition, the petitioner bears the ultimate burden of establishing 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The petitioner's burden is not discharged until the immigrant visa is issued. 
Tongatapu Woodcraft of Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1984). 
Intthis matter the approval of the petition based on the limited information submitted was clearly a matter of 
gross error. The petitioner has not provided evidence to rectify the deficiencies in the original submission and 
has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a basis for the 
appeal. 
The approval of the petition will be revoked for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for revocation. 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. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.