dismissed EB-1C Case: Food Service

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
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 Immigration 
Services 
DATE: 
MAY o·7 2013 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 THE PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fmd 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 office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its 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 motion 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 any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
l4-l. Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief. Administrative Anne:1l~ Offi~e 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. 
The matter came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. This office provided 
the petitioner with notice of adverse information in the record and afforded the petitioner an 
opportunity to provide rebuttal evidence that might overcome this information. 
The petitioner is a Texas limited liability company claimed to be engaged in food service that seeks 
to employ the beneficiary as its general 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office notified the petitioner that, according to publicly 
available records maintained by the State of Texas, the petitioner is currently inactive with a 
corporate status of "forfeited existence." The AAO provided the petitioner with copies of the 
adverse information. This office also notified the petitioner that if it is currently dissolved, inactive or 
forfeited its existence, this fact is material to its eligibility for the requested visa. 
This office allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to provide evidence to rebut the finding that the 
petitioner is inactive. The AAO advised the petitioner that it could provide a certificate of good 
standing or other proof that the company has not suspended its business operations and is currently 
in active status and in operation as a viable business. 
On March 5, 2013, the petitioner submitted a Motion to Accept 
Untimely Submission of Response to 
Notice of Derogatory Information. In response to the notice, the petitioner provided a letter from its 
accountant dated February 25, 2013. The accountant states that the petitioner "is an operating 
business until January 2013" but "the entity status was forfeited by the Texas Department of 
Revenue due to the non-filing of the franchise tax return of the company." The accountant further 
states that the petitioner is in the process of reinstating its corporate status. 
The petitioner's untimely response to the AAO's notice did not include a certificate of good standing 
or other evidence to support the accountant's claims that the petitioner is an operating business. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972) ). 
According to Texas state records provided with the petitioner's response, the petitioner's status has 
been recorded as "forfeited existence" since August 28, 2009 and therefore the petitioner in Texas is 
not in good standing. The petitioner's corporate status raises serious questions about whether it 
continues to exist as a U.S. 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 )(1 )(C) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(j)(2) and (3)(i)(C). Therefore, the petitioner no 
(b)(6)
Page3 
longer qualifies as a United States employer capable of making a valid job offer, and further pursuit 
of the instant petition is moot. 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 of 
the 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 sustained, the petition's approval would be subject to revocation pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii) upon dissolution of the corporate entity. Accordingly, the AAO finds that the 
dissolution of the petitioner deprives this appeal of any practical significance. Considerations of prudence 
warrant the dismissal of the appeal as moot. See Matter of Luis. 22 I&N Dec. 747. 753 ffiiA 1999).