dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

i&¶tifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
WAC 98 075 56233 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
IN 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 fkrther inquiry must be made to that office. 
e 
I Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
b 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was initially approved by the Director, California Service 
Center. 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 two notices of his intention to 
revoke the approval of the preference visa petition, and his reasons therefore. The director ultimately revoked 
the approval of the petition. The appeal will be rejected. 
After issuing two separate notices of his intent to revoke the approval of the petition, the director issued a 
revocation on November 3, 2004. The director's decision was based on the following findings: 1) the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; 2) 
the petitioner was dissolved on August 27, 2003 and is therefore no longer doing business; and 3) the 
petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. Based on the dissolution of the 
petitioning entity, the director automatically revoked the approval of the employment-based petition pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. 8 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(D). 
Although the petitioner filed an appeal seeking to have the director's decision reviewed and overturned by the 
MO, the MO lacks jurisdiction in the case of an automatic revocation. See Matter of Zaidan, 19 I&N Dec. 
297 (BIA 1985). The precedent decision noted that 8 C.F.R. $ 205.2 allows for an appeal of a decision of the 
district director revoking approval of a visa petition on any ground other than those listed in 8 C.F.R. 8 205.1. 
Id. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that there is no such provision for appellate 
review when a petition is automatically revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 205.1. Id. As the approval in the 
instant matter was revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(D), the petitioner cannot seek to appeal this 
decision. 
Finally, the record shows that both counsel and the beneficiary concede to the petitioner's dissolution. In fact, 
additional evidence has been provided regarding the beneficiary's new employment. Thus, it is unclear how a 
dissolved company can maintain a petition and a subsequent appeal on the beneficiary's behalf. It appears 
that the beneficiary, not the petitioner, has filed the appeal on the beneficiary's own behalf. However, the 
"party affected" in visa petition cases is the petitioner; the beneficiary does not have standing to move to 
reopen the proceedings. Matter of Dabaase, 16 I&N Dec. 720 (BIA 1979). Consequently, pursuant to the 
regulations cited above, the appeal in the instant matter must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.