dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

• 
DATE: DEC 0 5 2012oFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 20g0 
Washinglon, 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 Z03(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 11S3(b)(1)(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 be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that otfice. 
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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not tile any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ref Rosenberg . 
A~ting Chief, Administrative Appeals OtTice 
www.uscis.gov 
.-
DISCUSSION: The immigrant visa petition was denied oy the Director, Texas Service Center. It then came 
odore the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. On October 1, 2012, 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 of the State of Florida. It seeks to emplo), the 
beneficiary as president of its organization. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the ocneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(o)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
Pursuant to 8 c.P.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office notified the petitioner on October I, 2012 that, according to the 
records at the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, the petitioner is currently dissolved hy 
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 petitioner'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)(I)(C) of the Act; see also H C.F.R. ~§ 
204.5(j)(2) and (3)(i)(C). 
Moreover, any such concealment of the true status of the organization by the petitioner seriously compromises the 
credihility of the remaining evidence in the record. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 586 (I3IA 198H). It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record hy independent objective evidence, and 
attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing (0 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 finding that the petitioner has 
been dissolved. More than 30 days have passed and Ihe petitioner has failed 10 respond 10 this office's request lin 
a certificate of good standing or other proof that the petitioner remains in operation as a viable business. Thus, 
Ihe appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. I 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Solcane v. DO.!, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2(04). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Acl, 8 U.s.c. * 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot. 
Even if the appeal could be otherwise sustained, the petition's approval would be subject to aUlomatic 
revocation pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 20S.1(a)(iii)(D) upon dissolution of the corporate entity.