dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

• 
DATE: DEC 1 0 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 
U.S. DepartmL'nl of Homeland Security 
lJ. S. Cililf:mhljl <Jnd 11ll1l11~I'Clll()1l ScnH ... c~ 
Admmis\rali\c Appeals Ollicc IAAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.\V., MS 20l)O 
Washington. DC 20529-2()l)O 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational EXeCUlivl' ur ,\1anager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § I 153(b)( I )( C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to recollSider or a motion to rcopcn in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, WIth a fee of 5630. The 
specifrc requircments for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.'1. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please he aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.S(a)( I lei) requires thaI any motion must he fried 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
[/d. 
,lZ-Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
v.'Ww.uscis.go\ 
• 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. It then l'ame 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. On September 28, 2012, this office provided the 
petitioner and counsel with notice of adverse information in the record and afforded the petitioner an opportunity 
to provide evidence that might overcome this information. 
The petitioner claims to be a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. It secks to employ 
the heneficiary as a manager within its organization. Accordingly. the petitioner cIHJC<l\'or .... to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203Cb)( I ICC) or the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 USC * 1153(b)( I ICC), as a multinational executi ve or manager. 
Pursuant to 8 CF.R. § 103.2(b)( 16)(i), this office notified the petitioner on September 2S, 2012 that, the 
petitioning business in this matter was dissolved on May 8, 2008 and was therefore not active when the director 
issued two separate requests for additional evidence (RFE) on May 16,2008 and December 4. 200S, respectively. 
See Website of New York State Depmtment of State, DiviSion or Corporal1ons 
<http://appext9.dos.ny.gov/cOll'_publiclCORPSEACH.ENTITY _INFORMATION> (accessed on Septemhcr 24, 
2(12) 
This office fUlther informed the petitioner of additional anomalies. Specifically, the petitioner was informed that 
while the form 1-140 on record names Lancomtech, Inc. as the petitioning cntity in this proceeding, numerous 
other documents, including the Form 1-290B, the Notice of Entry of' Appearance as Attorney or Accredited 
Representative (Form G-28), and the stock certificates that were submitted in response to the director" s December 
4,2008 request for evidence pertain to a company by the name of Lancomtech Group, Inc. The AAO round that 
record did not include evidence establishing that the entity named in the Form 1-140 and the entity named In these 
other documents arc one and the same. The AAO noted, however, that Lancomtech Group, Inc., a separate New 
York corporation, had a\.so been dissolved. 
finally, this office notified the petitioner that if it is currently dissolved, this fact is matenal to its eligibility 1(1I' the 
requested visa. Specifically, the pLtitioner"s dissolution rai:-.es serious questions about v.hcthcr it continue" to eXist as 
an importing employer, whether the petitioner maintains a qualifying relationship, and whether it is aUlhori/.ed to 
conduct business in a regular and systematic manner. Sec section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Act: see "ls(I 8 CFR. ~* 
204.5(j)(2) and (3)(i)(C). 
Moreover, any such concealment of the true statlls of the organization by the petitioner seriously compromises tllL' 
credibility of the remaining evidence in the rccord. See M"lter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 5~2, 586 (BIA 1988). It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective CViUl'IlCl,:.'. anu 
attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where thl' 
truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. It!. 
This office accorded the petitioner 30 days in which to provide evidence to rebut the finding that the petitioncr has 
been dissolved. More than 30 day.s have passed and the petitioner has failed to respond to this officc's request for 
Page 3 
a certificate of good standing or other proof that the petitioner remains in operation as a viable business. Thus. 
the appeal will be dismissed as moot.' 
The AAO conducts appcllate review on a tie novo basis. See Sollane v. DO}. 381 F.3d 143. 14'i (3d Cir. 200-l1. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. 8 eSc. ~ 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot. 
1 Even if the appeal could be sustained, the petition's approval would be subject to revocation pursuant 10 X 
C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(9)(iii) upon dissolution of the corporate entity. Accordingly, the AAO finds that the dissolution 
of the petitioner deprives this appeal of any practical Significance. Considerations of prudence warrant the 
dismissal of the appeal as moot. See Marter ojLuis. 22 I&N Dec. 747. 753 (BIA 1999).