dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE : 
OCT 3 0 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) • 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Admini strative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen , respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
(J I 
I . /11 [/WF'?-., 
~ Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.usds.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, recommended denial of the immigrant visa petition and 
certified his decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.4. On June 13, 
2013, this office provided the petitioner with notice of adverse information and afforded the petition er an 
opportunity to provide rebuttal evidence. 
The petitioner states that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. The petitioner 
seeks 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) , as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the AAO notified the petitioner that, according to the record s at the 
Florida Department of State Division of Corporations website, the petitioner has been admini stratively 
dissolved. See Website of Florida Department of State Division of Corporations, available at 
<http://search.sunbiz.org> (last accessed October 25, 2013). The AAO provided the petitioner with a copy of 
the certificate of dissolution and incorporated it into the record of proceeding . 
This office also notified the petitioner that if it is currently dissolved, this fact is material to its eligibility for the 
requested visa. Specifically, the petitioner's dissolution raises serious questions about whether it continues to 
exist as an importing employer, whether the petitioner maintains a qualifying relationship with a foreign entity, 
whether it is authorized to conduct business in a regular and systematic manner, and whether it is able to offer 
permanent employment to the beneficiary. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; see also 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(j)(2) 
and (3)(i)(C). 
The AAO allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to provide evidence to rebut the finding that the petitioner 
has been dissolved . Specifically, the AAO requested a certificate of good standing or other proof that the 
petitioning company is currently active. 
More than 30 days have passed 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. 
The petitioner's dissolution by the Florida Department of State effectively terminates the employer's business. 
Where there is no active and legal U.S. entity, no legitimate job offer exists, and the request that a foreign worker 
be allowed to fill the position offered in the petition has become moot. 
Accordingly, while the petitioner has not withdrawn the petition in this proceeding, its dissolved corporate status 
renders the issues in this proceeding moot. Therefore, the petition will be denied as moot. 1 
1 Even if the petition were approvable, the petition's approval would be subject to revocation pursuant to 
section 205 of the Act upon dissolution of the petitioning employer. 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) . Accordingly, the AAO finds that the dissolution of the petitioner deprives this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). 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 petition is denied as moot. 
certification proceeding of any practical significance. Considerations of prudence warrant the denial of the 
petition as moot. See Matter of Luis, 22 I&N Dec. 747, 753 (BIA 1999).