dismissed EB-1C Case: Human Hair Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2024 In Re: 32867010 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner - an importer, marketer, and distributor of human hair for use in extensions, wigs, and 
hair pieces - seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as general manager. The company requests 
his classification under the employment-based, first-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a 
multinational manager or executive. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(C). 
After first granting the filing, the Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the petition's approval 
and dismissed the Petitioner's following motion to reopen. The Director concluded that the company 
did not timely respond to the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the petition's approval and that USCIS 
properly served the notice on the company. 
On appeal, we affirmed the Director's finding that USCIS properly mailed the NOIR to the Petitioner. 
See In Re: 29948283 (AAO Feb. 16, 2024). The matter returns to us on the Petitioner's motion to 
reconsider. The company maintains that, contrary to regulation, USCIS did not personally serve the 
NOIR to the company and that we must remand the matter for the notice's proper service. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon 
review, we conclude that USCIS properly served the NOIR to the company. We will therefore dismiss 
the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision misapplied law or policy based on the 
record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, we review only our latest 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that meet these requirements. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director issued the NOIR to the Petitioner's address of record by "routine service," which 
generally consists of "mailing the notice by ordinary mail addressed to the affected party and [their] 
attorney or representative ofrecord at [their] last known address." 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(l ). On motion, 
the company contends that the Director should have personally served the notice on the company. It 
requests a remand for what it claims would be proper service. 
If USCIS initiates a "proceeding" proposing an "adverse effect," the Agency must personally serve 
the initiating notice and decision on the affected party. 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(c)(l). "Personal service" 
means: personally serving a copy; delivering a copy to a person's usual place of abode; delivering a 
copy at an attorney's office; sending a copy by certified or registered mail; or, ifrequested by a party, 
advising them by electronic mail and posting the decision to their USCIS account. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.8(a)(2)(i-v). 
Upon reconsideration, we do not agree that a NOIR's issuance requires personal service. The 
regulations, case law, and policy support our conclusion. As indicated in our prior decision, when a 
petition's approval has been automatically revoked, USCIS must notify a petitioner by routine service. 
The Agency must send "a copy of such notice to be mailed to the petitioner's last known address." 
8 C.F.R. § 205.l(b). It therefore follows that, when revoking a petition's approval on notice under 
8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b), USCIS should similarly issue a NOIR by routine service. 
Also, USCIS policy contemplates NOIR mailings by routine service. See I USCIS Policy Manual 
E.(l0)(D) ("When USCIS serves a NOIR ... by ordinary mail, the service of the NOIR ... is complete 
upon the benefit requestor on the day that USCIS physically mails it.") (emphasis added). Further, a 
federal court examined the issue in the context of immigrant visa petition proceedings and found 
routine service sufficient to issue a NOIR. See Wah Yuet (USA) Inc. v. Ashcroft, No. CV 04-9145 
CAS (SSx), 2006 WL 8430892, *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2006) ("INS[, the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service,] properly effectuated service when it mailed the NOIR to Wah Yuet at its last 
known address."). 
Finally, we recognize that 8 C.F.R. § 103.8( c)(l) requires personal service only when a "proceeding" 
may have a proposed adverse effect. This matter is not a proceeding. More akin to a bond breach 
determination, the revocation of an approved immigrant visa petition does not involve a hearing before 
an immigration official or any formal presentation of evidence before an administrative tribunal. See 
Safety Nat. Cas. Corp. v. DHS, No. Civ.A. H-05-CV-2159, 2010 WL 1849037 (S.D. Tex. May 11, 
2009), ajf'd sub nom. AAA Bonding Agency Inc. v. DHS, 447 F. App'x 603, 609 (5th Cir. 2011) 
("We agree that DHS's [Department of Homeland Security's] interpretation that a breach 
determination is excluded from the term 'proceeding' is entitled to deference."); see also Proceeding, 
Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) ("Proceeding is a word much used to express the business 
done in courts." ( cleaned up)). DRS and the former INS have long used the term "proceeding" to refer 
to matters before an Immigration Judge. See, e.g., "Method of Service of Decision on Application for 
Extension of Voluntary Departure," INS Gen. Co. Op. No. 95-1, 1995 WL 1796308 (Jan. 10, 1995). 
For the foregoing reasons, USCIS properly mailed the NOIR to the Petitioner by routine service. We 
therefore need not remand the matter as the Petitioner requests. 
2 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3