dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade / Tourism

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
piJBL1C COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: 
IN RE: 
F Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
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. 9 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. 
~'h.k@/ 
Pobert P. iemann, Director 
dministrative Appeals Office 
1 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was initially approved by the Director, California Service 
Center. Subsequently, the beneficiary applied for adjustment of status. On the basis of new information 
received and on further review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was not eligible for 
the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director properly served the petitioner with a notice of his intention to 
revoke the approval of the preference visa petition, and his reasons therefore. After the petitioner failed to 
submit a timely response, the director revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner was incorporated in the State of California in 1994 and is claimed to be a subsidiary of 
Liaoning International Leather Products, Inc., located in China. The petitioner claims to be engaged in 
international trade and the tour agency business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 
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. The director approved the immigrant petition on February 21, 1997. 
Based on an investigation conducted by investigators from the American Embassy in China regarding the 
petitioner's parent company, as well as further review of the record, the director issued a notice of intent to 
revoke the approval on August 16, 2002. The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish the 
existence of the parent company and, therefore, did not meet its burden of establishing that the beneficiary has 
the requisite one year of employment abroad with a qualifying entity or that it has a qualifying relationship 
with a foreign entity. The director also determined that the beneficiary has not been employed in the United 
States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. After the petitioner failed to respond to the notice of 
intent to revoke, the director revoked the approval of the petition on November 6,2002. 
On appeal, counsel refutes all of the director's findings and provides an explanation for the U.S. Embassy's 
adverse findings regarding the existence of a foreign parent company. Counsel states that on August 16, 2002 
the petitioner received the director's "Response to an Intent to Revoke." It is noted that the notice was 
improperly titled as a "Response," in light of the fact that it was the director's notice informing the petitioner 
of his intent to revoke approval of the petition. However, this mistake is not germane to the issues at hand 
and, therefore, will not affect the outcome of this decision. Counsel further states that the petitioner's prior 
counsel did not inform the petitioner of the intent notice until September 9, 2002 and did not forward the 
notice to current counsel until September 13, 2002. The petitioner submitted additional evidence for the 
record addressing the issues previously discussed by the director in the notice of intent to revoke. 
CIS is not persuaded by counsel's claim that the petitioner was not informed of the director's notice of intent 
to revoke until September 9, 2002. The evidence of record clearly shows that the notice of intent was sent to 
the petitioner's counsel of record. The petitioner did not obtain new counsel until nearly one month after the 
notice of intent had been issued. There is no evidence to indicate that the petitioner advised CIS, in writing, 
of a change of counsel and the new counsel's address prior to the issuance of the director's notice of intent. 
See 8 C.F.R. 9 292.4. Contrary to counsel's inference, the director was not required to send a copy of his 
intent to revoke to the petitioner when the record clearly indicated that the petitioner was represented by 
counsel. See 8 C.F.R. 4 292.5. 
Generally, the decision to revoke approval of an immigrant petition will be sustained, 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. Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 569 (BIA 1988). For this 
reason, the decision of the director will be affirmed and the appeal will be dismissed. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1155, states that "[tlhe 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 
[of the Act]." 
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 the evidence 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 of Estime, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient cause for the 
revocation of a petition's approval, provided the director's revised opinion is supported by the record. Id. 
Notwithstanding CIS'S burden to show "good and sufficient cause" in proceedings to revoke the approval of a 
visa petition, the petitioner still bears the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. at 
589; Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1968); see also Tongatapu Woodcraft of Hawaii, Ltd. v. 
Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1984). The approval of a visa petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of 
the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step in the visa application process. The 
beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582. 
In the present case, the director did raise sufficient factual issues to support the revocation. The notice of 
intent to revoke and the subsequent revocation were based on evidence that was in the record at the time the 
notice was issued. The petitioner did not offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to the notice of intention to 
revoke and has not overcome the factual inconsistencies contained in the record. In revocation proceedings, 
"[ilt is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582. 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's submission of evidence on appeal, the petitioner failed to offer an 
explanation or rebuttal to the director's properly issued notice of intention to revoke. On appeal, counsel 
offers a seemingly plausible explanation for the U.S. Embassy's adverse findings by claiming that the 
Chinese government seized the foreign entity's property causing it to have to move to a different location. 
However, the statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any 
evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). Moreover, the translated explanation, dated September 12, 2002, which was 
Page 4 
submitted in support of the appeal, makes no mention of any government seizure. It simply suggests that the 
foreign entity's business operations were moved to a different location subsequent to a purchase agreement 
between two companies, one of which was the foreign entity. This translated explanation is clearly not a 
contemporaneous document intended as a record of the change of the foreign entity's address. Accordingly, 
pursuant to Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 569, the director's decision to revoke the petition's approval will not 
be disturbed. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. The 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.