dismissed EB-1C Case: Energy Research And Consulting

.a I U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W , Rm. A3042 
L I Washmgton, DC 20529 
Adcbh&5~j narig OgdtLa ~R.LBit~~il~~ ~0 
prevent clearly unrwanrantd , U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
+ 
lli -', 
'i \ 
L 
File: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 06235 55352 B"IEB 2 1 20ii 
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: 
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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the employment-based visa 
petition. Upon subsequent review the director issued a notice of intent to revoke approval of the petition and, 
after the petitioner failed to submit a timely rebuttal, ultimately revoked approval. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of California in May 1998. It claims to provide energy 
research and consulting services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its presidentlgeneral manager. 
* : 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The petition was filed July 24, 2000 and was approved October 26, 2000. Upon subsequent review of the 
record, including information received in a February 25, 2002 interview in conjunction with the beneficiary's 
Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, the director issued a notice of 
intent to revoke September 10, 2004. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that: (1) 
it had been or currently conducted business in the United States; (2) the beneficiary had been or would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the United States entity;*(3) the beneficiary had been 
employed in,a managerial or executive capacity for the foreign employer \for the required time pefiod prior to 
entering the United States as a nonimmigrant; (4) a qualifying relationship existed between the petitioner and 
the beneficiary's foreign employer; or, (5) it had the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered annual wage' 
of $40,000. The director accorded the petitioner 30 days to respond to the issues raised in the notice of intent ' 
to revoke approval. In an October 6,2004 letter, counsel for the petitioner requested an additional 30 days to 
gather information to respond to the notice of intent to revoke. On January 31, 2005, the director revoked 
approval of the petition, observing that the petitioner had been provided an extension to January 6, 2005 to 
rebut the director's determinations in his notice of intent- to revoke, but had failed to provide any 
communication regarding the matter. 
Counsel for the petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of ~i~eal, on February 15, 2005 indicating that a 
brief andlor evidence would be submitted within 30 days. Counsel did not indicate why the brief would be 
submitted late or otherwise provide good cause for the requested extension. In a letter dated March 14, 2005, 
counsel for the petitioner submits a "statement in suppgrt of appeal," noting that counsel "will address the 
relevant points raised in the Original Notice of Intent tp Revoke dated September 10, 2004." 
Generally, the director's decision to revoke the,,approval of a petition will be affirmed, notwithstanding the 
submission of evidence on appeal, where a petitioner fails to offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to a 
properly issued notice of intention to revoke. See Matter of Arias,'l9 I&N Dec. 568,569 (BIA 1988). 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1155, states: "The Attorney General may, at any time, for what he deems to 
be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of 
Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, . . . this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is 
properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where theievidence of record at the time the 
notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition 
based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be 
sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including any 
evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner,in rebuttal to the notice of intention to 
revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter ofEstime, 19 I&N 450 (Bw 1987)). 
In this matter, based on the record, the director had good and sufficient cause to issue a notice of intent to 
revoke and so properly issued the notice of intent to revoke. The petitioner's failure to offer evidence to rebut 
the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the record, when put on notice, requires that the director's decision to 
revoke the approval of a petition be affirmed, notwithstanding the submission of a brief and evidence on 
appeal. The AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19'1&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Under the 
circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the suffi6iency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. >. 
Counsel has not provided evidence, good cause, or any sort of statement justifiing the petitioner's failure to 
respond to the director's properly issued notice of intent to revoke'approval. Inasmuch as neither counsel nor 
the petitioner responded to the director's notice of intent to revoke, the AAO will affirm the director's 
: decision. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. at 569. 
: The approval of the petition will be revoked for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for revocation. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving 
eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.