dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventcle2rlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBUCCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandimmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusensAve.N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 1 6 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthat you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotiontobefiledwithin
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Thedirector,TexasServiceCenter,initially approvedthe employment-basedvisa
petition on December8, 2006. The directorsubsequentlydeterminedthat the petitionerwasnot
eligible for the benefit soughtandthereforeissueda Notice of Intent to Revoke(NOIR). The
directorultimatelyrevokedapprovalof the petitionon April 15,2008. Thepetitionersubsequently
filed an appealto the AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) wherethe appealwasdismissedin a
decisiondatedApril 2, 2009. Thepetitionersubsequentlyfiled a motionto reopenandreconsider
which the AAO dismissedon November23, 2010. On December27, 2010,the petitionerfiled a
motionto reconsider.Themotionto reconsiderwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris a limitedliability companyformedunderthelawsof the Stateof Florida. It seeksto
employthebeneficiaryasitsgeneralmanager.Accordingly,it endeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryas
anemployment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationality
Act (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveor manager.
Uponreviewandafterprovidingpropernotice,thedirectorultimatelyrevokedtheapprovalpursuantto
section205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1155. The directordeterminedthat: 1) the petitionerfailed to
establishthatthebeneficiarywill be employedin a primarilymanagerialor executivecapacityin the
UnitedStates,and2) thepetitionerfailedto establishthat it hadbeendoingbusinessfor at leastone
yearpriorto thefilingof thepetitiononNovember14,2005.
Onmotion,counseldoesnot addresseitherof thetwo groundsthatformedthebasisfor thedecision
to revoke the petition. Rather, counselarguesthat it is improper for U.S. Citizenship and
ImmigrationServices(USCIS)to revisittheissueof thepetitioner'seligibility for the employment-
basedvisa soughton behalf of the beneficiarywhen the beneficiaryhas alreadybeengranted
permanentresidentstatus. Counselfurther assertsthat if the beneficiarywas not eligible for
permanentresidentstatus,the proper meansto remedythe error is to commencethe processfor
rescindingthe approvalof thebeneficiary'sapplicationfor adjustmentof statusin accordancewith
section246 of the Act, therebyrequiringUSCISto meetthe clear,convincing,andunequivocal
burdenof proof. In addition,counselcontendsthatthe casesdiscussedin the AAO's prior decision
arenot relevantasthosecasesdiscussedthe revocationof an I-140 petition prior to the approvalof
adjustmentof status,when in this case,the I-140 revocationhasoccurredaner the beneficiary was
grantedadjustmentof status.
Counselsitesto section246 of the Act, andstatesthat the AAO hasno authorityto rescindthe
adjustmentof status. TheAAO agreeswith counselandnotesthatthe currentrevocationdoesnot
dealwith theadjustmentof statusbut insteadisarevocationof theunderlyingI-140petition.
USCISregulationsaffirmativelyrequireanaliento establisheligibility for animmigrantvisaat the
timeanapplicationfor adjustmentof statusisfiled. See8C.F.R.§245.l(a).If thebeneficiaryof an
approvedvisapetitionwasineligibleor isno longereligiblefor theclassificationsought,thedirector
mayseekto revokehisapprovalof thepetitionpursuantto section205of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1155,
for "good andsufficient cause." By itself, a director'srealizationthat a petition was incorrectly
approvedis goodandsufficientcausefor the issuanceof a noticeof intentto revokeanimmigrant
petition. MatterofHo, 19I&N Dec.at590. NotwithstandingtheUSCISburdento show"goodand
sufficient cause"in proceedingsto revokethe approvalof a visapetition, the petitionerbearsthe
ultimateburdenof establishingeligibility for thebenefitsought.In Matterof Cheunt, 12I&N Dec.
Page3
715 (BIA 1968),the Boardspeciñedthat the burdenremainswith the petitionerin revocation
proceedingsto establishthat the beneficiaryqualifiesfor the benefitsoughtunderthe immigration
laws,aprinciplewhichwasreaffirmedin Matterof Estime, 19I&N Dec.450(BIA 1987).
As statedin theAAO'searlierdecision,withregardto therevocationonnoticeof animmigrantpetition
undersection205of theAct,theBoardof ImmigrationAppealshasstated:
In Matter of Estime,. . . this Board statedthat a notice of intention to revokea visa
petition is properly issuedfor "good andsufficient cause"wherethe evidenceof
recordatthetimethenoticeis issued,if unexplainedandunrebutted,wouldwarranta
denialof the visapetition baseduponthe petitioner'sfailureto meethis burdenof
proof Thedecisionto revokewill besustainedwheretheevidenceof recordat the
timethedecisionis rendered,includinganyevidenceor explanationsubmittedby the
petitionerin rebuttalto thenoticeof intentionto revoke,wouldwarrantsuchdenial.
MatterofHo, 19I&N Dec.582,590(BIA 1988)(citingMatterofEstime,19I&N 450(BIA 1987)).
Counselsuggeststhat a petitioner'seligibility is no longeran issueoncethe beneficiaryof the
employment-basedvisapetitionadjustshisor her statusto thatof a permanentresident.Counsel's
interpretationpresumesthateligibility for theemployment-basedvisahadbeenproperlyestablished.
Suchis not the casewith the currentpetitionerwhereboth the directorandthe AAO (in its prior
decision)outlinedspecificreasonsshowingwhy thepetitionhadbeenerroneouslyapproved.In the
presentmatter,therecordindicatesthatthebeneficiary'spermanentresidentstatuswasbasedsolely
on anapprovedFormI-140. Therefore,establishingeligibility for theunderlyingemployment-based
visapetitionis a crucialstepin theoverallprocessof adjustingthebeneficiary'sstatusto thatof a
permanentresident.Assuch,while thepetitionerdoesnot havetheburdenof maintainingeligibility
afterthe immigrantvisais issued,thepetitionercannotclaimto havea valid visapetitionif it failed
to establishthat it metthe eligibility requirementsat the time of filing andcontinuedto meetsuch
requirementsthroughthedatethebeneficiary'sstatuswasadjustedto thatof a permanentresident.
Contraryto counsel'sassertion,the issueof eligibility for the employment-basedimmigrant petition
does not becomeirrelevant merely becausean adjustmentof status application was erroneously
approvedon thebasisof a petitionwhereeligibility hadnot beenestablished.Sucha visapetition
would be deemedinvalid and USCISwould bejustified in reevaluatingany subsequentbenefits
derivedfrom the invalid visa petition. This is further reiteratedin the Act at section221(i) that
states:"After the issuanceof a visaor otherdocumentationto anyalien,the consularofficer of the
Secretaryof Statemayatanytime,in hisdiscretion,revokesuchvisaor otherdocumentation."
Counsel'sargumentoverlooksthepossibilitythatrevocationof a visapetitionmayserveasa basis
for rescindingtheapprovalof an applicationfor adjustmentof status. Thus,revocationof the visa
petitionin thepresentmatterisnot anisolatedprocedurethatdealssolelywith theissueofeligibility
for theemployment-basedvisaclassification.Rather,therevocationwill betreatedasa preliminary
stepto the overallrescissionprocessbasedon the reasoningthat if the beneficiaryis foundto be
ineligible for an employment-basedvisa classification,the erroneousapproval of such visa
classificationcannotserveasabasisfor grantingthebeneficiary'sapplicationfor permanentresident
status.
Page4
In summary,USCIShasdeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility on two grounds.
The AAO has since affirmed the director's findings in the decisionissuedon April 2, 2009.
Although counselgenerallydisputesthe propriety of issuingany adversefindings regardingthe
petitioner'seligibility for theimmigrantvisapetitiongiventhebeneficiary'sadjustmentof status,the
actualgroundsfor revocationhavenotbeendisputedor overcomeonmotion.
Accordingly, the revocationwill remain undisturbedfor the above statedreasons,with each
consideredasanindependentandalternativebasisfor revocationof theapprovalof thevisapetition.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirely
with thepetitioner. Section291of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthat
burden.
ORDER: Themotionis dismissed.