dismissed EB-1C Case: Finance

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 0 2 2014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusett s Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 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 office . 
Thank you, 
~R;;~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner subsequently appealed this matter to the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO). After careful review of the record, it is determined that the petition was timely withdrawn 
on August 8, 2011, prior to the director's issuance of a final decision. Therefore, the record will 
reflect that the petition was withdrawn. The director's decision will be withdrawn and the appeal 
will be dismissed as moot based on the withdrawal of the petition. 
The petitioner is a limited liability company that was organized in the State of Florida. It previously 
sought to employ the beneficiary as its chief financial officer. Accordingly, the petitioner 
endeavored to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
After issuing the second of two notices of derogatory information, the director ultimately denied the 
petition with a finding of fraud on August 16, 2013. The petitioner filed a timely appeal seeking 
foremost to enforce the petitioner's withdrawal of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, as of August 8, 2011. 
The issues to be addressed in this matter are: (1) whether the director erred by adjudicating the 
petition on its merits following receipt of the petitioner's request that the petition be withdrawn; and 
(2) whether the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition constituted a timely retraction of the alleged 
misrepresentation that formed the basis ofthe director's finding of fraud. 
I. Withdrawal 
As an initial matter, in view of the petitioner's request that the petition be withdrawn, the director 
issued the August 16, 2013 decision on the merits in error. Therefore, the AAO will withdraw the 
director's decision. The record will reflect that the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. Matter 
of Cintron, 16 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1976). The AAO will not address the petitioner's claims of 
eligibility for the requested classification as such claims are now moot based on the withdrawal of 
the petition. 
A petitioner may withdraw a petition at any time up to the point that a decision is rendered by 
USCIS or, if the petition is approved, until the beneficiary is admitted, adjusts status, or changes 
status based on the approved petition. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 6). A withdrawal may not be retracted. 
!d. Once a petition is withdrawn, USCIS may not refuse the withdrawal and may not deny the 
petition on the merits, but the facts and circumstances surrounding the withdrawn petition shall be 
considered material to any new petition. See Matter of Cintron, 16 I&N at 9; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(15). 
II. Timely Retraction 
Although the record will reflect that the petition was withdrawn, only a timely and voluntary 
retraction of a misrepresentation can serve as a defense to inadmissibility; the simple withdrawal of a 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
visa petition will not absolve a petitioner or beneficiary from the attempted misrepresentation. A 
withdrawal will not preclude users from entering a finding of fact on the record, separate and apart 
from a decision on the merits, based on an attempt to procure a visa, other documentation, 
admission, any other immigration benefit by fraud or the willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Accordingly, the second issue in this matter is whether the withdrawal constitutes a timely retraction 
of the alleged "falsified evidence" which resulted in the director's finding of fraud. A timely 
retraction of a misrepresentation can serve as a defense to inadmissibility under section 
212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949); Matter of M-, 9 I&N 
Dec. 118 (BIA 1960). For the retraction to be effective, it must be done "voluntarily and without 
prior exposure of [the] false testimony." Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. at 827; see also Matter of 
Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412, 414 (BIA 1973) (holding that recantation of false testimony one year after 
the event, and only after it became apparent that the disclosure of the falsity of the statements was 
imminent, was not voluntary or timely). 
Here, the record shows that the director issued two notices of intent to deny (NOIDs) prior to 
denying the petition. The first NOID was issued on November 9, 2010 and exclusively addressed 
issues pertaining to the petitioner's eligibility, including the lack of sufficient evidence establishing 
the petitioner's qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's former employer abroad as well as 
evidence establishing the beneficiary's qualifying employment in his former and proposed positions. 
Although the petitioner submitted a response to the NOID on December 13, 2010, the petitioner 
ultimately chose to withdraw the petition pursuant to the August 8, 2011 letter referenced above. 
Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the petition, the director proceeded with the adjudication of the 
petition by issuing a second NOID. The second NOID listed perceived anomalies in the evidence 
that gave rise to questions pertaining to its reliability and credibility. If the petitioner had submitted 
the withdrawal statement after having received the second NOID alleging the submission of "false 
evidence," there would have been no timely and voluntary correction of misrepresentation as the 
NOID would have placed the petitioner on notice that the director was prepared to expose the 
alleged false testimony. See Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. at 119. However, the petitioner withdrew the 
petition on August 8, 2011, which is more than thirteen months prior to the date the director notified 
the petitioner of derogatory information which put the petitioner's and the beneficiary's credibility in 
question. The petitioner's request to withdraw the petition had the effect of a timely retraction. 
Accordingly, the director's finding of fraud will be withdrawn. 
ORDER: The petition is withdrawn. The director's decision dated August 16, 2013 is withdrawn 
and the appeal is dismissed as moot based on the withdrawal of the petition. 
FURTHER ORDER: The director's finding of fraud or misrepresentation is withdrawn.