dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 1 8 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
. INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
. .IH~dtep~~ent.,r.Homelau~ Seeurlty 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.S. Citizenship 
and I:imhigration 
Services · 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) ofthe 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 in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have·beeil returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning yom;- 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 reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with · the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
. directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion mustbe filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
~);t . ··""' 
RonRos£7> 
. Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
M,'V'f.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The immigrant visa petition was denied by the DireCtor, Texas Service Center. It then came 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. On February 20, 2013, this office 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. 
The petitioner claims to be a corporation organized under the laws ofthe State of Texas. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its "president/CEO:" 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a: multinational executive or manager. -
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i), this office notified the petitioner on February 20,2013 that, according to 
the records at the Texas Department of State, Division of Corporations, the petitioner is currently inactive by 
reason of voluntary dissolution. 
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 petition~r's dissolution raises serious questions about whether it continues to exist as 
an importing employer, whether .the petitioner maintains a qualifying relationship, and whether it is authorized to 
conduct business in a regular and systematic manner. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.50)(2) and (3)(i)(C). 
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). 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. Id. 
This office accorded the petitioner 30 days in which to provide evidence to rebut the fmding that the petitioner has 
been dissolved. 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. Thus, 
the appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. 1 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot. · 
1 Even if the appeal could be otherwise sustained, the petition's approval would be subject to automatic 
revocation pursuant to·8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(iii)(D) upon dissolution of the corporate entity.