dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail Business

DATE: OCT 1 1 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(J)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 US.C. § lI53(b)(I)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fmd the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with tbe AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the Texas Service Center revoked the previously approved 
immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner has "multiple retail businesses and locations" and seeks to employ the beneficiary as 
its Director/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. § I I 53(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On May II, 2010, the director notified the petitioner of his intent to revoke approval of the 1-140 
petition based on a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") investigation. 
On August 9, 2011, the director revoked the petition concluding that the petitioner did not submit 
sufficient evidence in rebuttal to the Notice ofintent to Revoke ("NOIR") and has not overcome the 
grounds for revocation. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1155, states: "The 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." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 ofthe Act, the Board 
ofimmigration 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 I 988)(citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
On April II, 2008, the petitioner filed the Form 1-140 to classifY the beneficiary as an employment­
based immigrant. The director approved the petition. On May II, 2010, the director notified the 
petitioner of his intent to revoke approval of the immigrant petition. In the notice of intent to 
revoke, the director stated the following: 
A thorough review of your Petition for Alien Relative (Form 1-140) indicates fraud 
was established. After an examination of the Texas Workforce Commissions' 
(TWC) documents, the Texas Service Center, and the Center Fraud Detection 
Operations (CFDO-TC) has determined that there are many inconsistencies found in 
the statements and documents that were submitted with Form 1-140. 
found that the [documents] submitted by the petitioner are inconsistent with 
the staff, the staff size, and the wages paid to the employees and therefore [are] 
considered fraudulent. 
Page 3 
In addition, the petitioner did not establish that he worked in a managerial/executive 
capacity for [the foreign company]. It is also unclear whether the beneficiary 
actually supervised any employees listed in the petitioner's statements. Absence of 
staffmg may signal the presence of one person alone working minimal hours and is 
not performing at a managerial or executive level. 
In response to the director's NOIR, the petitioner stated in a letter dated, June 9, 2010, that "we are 
in the process of acquiring in which is 
about 80 miles from our ' The petitioner also stated that "we 
are looking at the ' The petitioner provided 
photographs 0 between [the 
petitioner 1 and the internet listing for 
Houses, a job description for the beneficiary's duties with the foreign company and his current 
duties with the petitioner, an organizational chart of the petitioner dated May 17, 2010, current 
payroll records for the petitioner, and expired lease agreements made by the petitioner. 
On August 9, 201 0, the director revoked the petition concluding that the petitioner did not submit 
sufficient evidence in rebuttal to the NOIR and has not overcome the grounds for revocation. 
Upon review, the AAO agrees with the director's decision and will affirm the revocation of the 
petition. Generally, the director's decision to revoke the approval of a petition will be afflTIlled, 
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. See Matter of Arias, 19 
I&N Dec. 568, 569 (B1A 1988). 
On May II, 2010, the director put the petitioner on notice of the intention to revoke the approval 
and the required evidence to overcome a revocation of the immigrant petitioner. See 8 C.P.R. § 
103.2(b)(8). The petitioner was put on notice of the inconsistencies of the 1-140 petition but in the 
response, the petitioner provided new evidence of a new business venture and did not provide any 
evidence, aside from a job description, of the petitioner's staffmg levels at the time the 1-140 
petition was filed in April 2008. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(viii) states that the director may request additional evidence 
in appropriate cases. Although specifically requested by the director, the petitioner did not provide 
the requested evidence. The petitioner's failure to submit this information cannot be excused. The 
failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). The director appropriately denied the petition, in 
part, fur failure to submit requested evidence. 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been 
given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the 
first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BlA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (B1A 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to 
be considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for 
Page 4 
evidence. Jd. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of 
the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.