dismissed EB-1C Case: Restaurant

(b)(6)
DATE: OCT 0 7 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Department 'of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citize nship and Immi gration Serv ic( 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave. N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigr ant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Exe cutive 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 PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the dec ision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non­
precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy 
through non-precedent decisions. 
Thank you, 
l!k-
+Ron Rosen berg 
Chief, Administrativ e Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID), and ultimately 
denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The petitioner filed an appeal in response to the NOID, prior to the 
adjudication of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be rejected as improperly filed. 
The petitioner, a Texas corporation, operates a restaurant and seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Managing 
Director. 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 )(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On August 10, 2012, the director issued a NOID setting forth several discrepancies and deficiencies in the 
petitioner's evidence submitted in support of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker. The 
director requested a response from the petitioner within thirty (30) days of the notice. On September 7, 2012, 
the petitioner submitted a memorandum and additional evidence in a timely fashion to the director 
endeavoring to address the issues raised in the NOID. Further, on September 11, 2012, the petitioner filed a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicating that it was filing an appeal. The petitioner stated in the 
appeal that it II intends to rebut the derogatory information stated in users records, and responds [sic] to 
additional request for evidence." The petitioner included its response to the director's NOID from September 
7, 2012 with the Form I-290B. The director later issued a decision denying the petition on April30, 2013. 1 
The pe1tinent regulation at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(8)(iii) states that USCIS may issue a NOID if the initial 
evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish eligibility. users must specify the type of evidence 
required and/or the bases of the proposed denial sufficient to give the petitioner adequate notice and sufficient 
information to respond, along with a deadline for response. See 8 C.F.R § l03.2(b)(8). In response to a 
NOID, the petitioner may submit a complete response containing all requested information; submit a partial 
response and ask for a decision based on the record, or withdraw the petition. See 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(ll). 
The regulation does not allow a petitioner to file an appeal to the AAO in response to a NOID. Only 
unfavorable decisions on petitions may be appealed. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(ii). 
As of the date of the filing of the appeal, September 11, 2012, the petitioner had yet to receive an unfavorable 
decision from USCIS. A NOID is not an unfavorable decision, but a process through which USCIS may 
allow a petitioner to respond and submit additional evidence when users finds initial evidence submitted in 
support of a petition insufficient to establish eligibility. 
1 
The petitioner subsequently filed two motions to reconsider in response to the director's denial on April 30, 
2013, one filed on May 30, 2013 and one filed on Jmi.e 3, 2013. The official having jurisdiction over a 
motion to reconsider is the official who made the latest decision in the proceeding, in this case the Director of 
the Texas Service Center. See 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l)(ii). At this time, both motions to reconsider are pending 
adjudication by the service center. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
As such, the AAO has no jurisdiction over the appeal since no unfavorable decision had been issued at the 
time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(ii). Therefore, the appeal will be rejected as improperly filed. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.