dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

PUBLIC COE r 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwava-x-ire6 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 195 53684 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER  ate: NOV 2 8 2007 
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. 5 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 firther inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 195 53684 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center on July 17, 
2004. That decision was appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office, where the director's decision was 
withdrawn and the matter remanded for Mher consideration and entry of a new decision. After issuing a request 
for additional evidence on August 26,2005 and following a review of the petitioner's response, the director again 
denied the petition and, as directed, certified the decision to the MO for review. On June 5, 2007, the petitioner 
filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the U.S. Central District Court of California. On August 
6, 2007, this office affirmed the director's decision and denied the petition. On October 19, 2007, this office 
notified the petitioner that it had elected to sua sponte reopen this matter pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.(a)()(ii). In this notice the MO also provided the petitioner with notice of adverse information in the 
record and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to provide evidence that might overcome this information. This 
reopened appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. 
The procedural history of this case is documented in the record and incorporated into the decision. Further 
elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. 
As set forth in this office's letter dated October 19, 2007, the central issue in this case is whether the petitioner 
remains in operation as a viable business. 
The AAO reviews de novo issues raised in decisions challenged on appeal. See Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 
9 (2d Cir. 1989). The AAO considers all evidence properly in the record including evidence properly submitted 
on appeal or in response to notification that the MO has reopened a matter on its own motion.' 
On October 19, 2007, this office notified the petitioner that, according to the records at the California Business 
Portal website maintained by the Office of the California Secretary of State, this corporation has voluntarily elected to 
wind up its operations and has completely dissolved its business as a corporation. See 
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ ShowAl1List?QueryCorpNumbe~.=C2153457 (accessed October 19,2007). 
This oEce also notified the petitioner that if it is currently dissolved, this is material to whether the job offer, as 
outlined on the immigrant petition filed by this organization, is a bona fide job offer. Moreover, any such 
concealment of the true status of the organization by the petitioner seriously compromises the credibility of the 
remaining evidence in the record. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 586 (BIA 1988)(stating that doubt cast on 
any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition.) It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies 
in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. See Id. 
This office allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to provide evidence that the records maintained by the Office 
of the California Secretary of State were not accurate and that the petitioner remains in operation as a viable 
business. More than 30 days have passed since October 19, 2007 and the petitioner has failed to respond to this 
office's request for a certificate of good standing or other proof that the petitioner remains in operation as a viable 
business. Thus, this reopened appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. 
-- - 
1 
 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which are 
incorporated into the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(l). Submissions are also allowed after a matter has been 
reopened by the Service pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(5)(ii). The record in the instant case 
provides no reason to preclude consideration of any documents newly submitted on appeal or in response to 
notification that the AAO reopened the matter on its own motion. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 
1988). 
WAC 03 195 53684 
Page 3 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.