remanded EB-1C Case: Automotive Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 21, 2024 In Re: 31399451 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, an exporter of used cars and spare auto parts, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its 
president/chief executive officer (CEO) under the employment-based, first-preference (EB-1) 
immigrant visa category as a multinational executive. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This category allows a multinational organization to 
transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to permanently work in an executive 
capacity. Id. 
After initially granting the filing, the Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the petition's 
approval. The Director concluded that she mistakenly approved the petition because the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer ceased operations before the petition's filing and the Petitioner willfully 
misrepresented its inclusion in a multinational organization. On appeal, the Petitioner denies the 
alleged misrepresentation, contending that the Beneficiary's foreign employer continued conducting 
business until after the petition's approval, when it merged with an "affiliate" of the Petitioner. The 
company also asserts that the Director "prematurely" revoked the filing's approval. 1 
In these revocation proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the 
requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 589 (BIA 
1988). Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 
(AAO 2015), we conclude that the company should have received more time to respond to the 
proposed revocation under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS') COVID-19 
"flexibilities" then in effect. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
A noncitizen qualifies as a multinational executive if - in the three years before their U.S. entry as a 
nonimmigrant - they worked outside the country for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). A multinational executive 
1 The Petitioner submitted an amicus curiae brief from another attorney regarding whether the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer continued to do business. See generally AAO Practice Manual , ch. 3.8(e), www.uscis.gov/aao-practice-manual. 
must also seek to provide executive services in the United States for the same foreign employer or its 
subsidiary or affiliate. Id. 
"[A ]t any time" before a beneficiary obtains permanent residence, however, USCIS may revoke a 
petition's approval "for good and sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. If 
supported by the record, a petition's erroneous approval may justify its revocation. Matter ofHo, 19 
I&N Dec. at 590. 
USCIS properly issues a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) a petition's approval if the unexplained 
and unrebutted record at the time of the NOIR's issuance would have warranted the petition's denial. 
Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). If a petitioner does not timely submit a NOIR 
response or the response does not overcome the listed revocation grounds, USCIS may revoke a 
petition's approval. Id. at 452. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Unless an approved petition is subject to "automatic revocation" under 8 C.F .R. § 205.1, USCIS must 
notify a petitioner of a proposed revocation. 8 C.F.R § 205.2(a), (b). "The petitioner ... must be 
given the opportunity to offer evidence in support of the petition ... and in opposition to the grounds 
alleged for revocation of the approval." 8 C.F.R § 205.2(b). 
On December 7, 2020, the Director mailed a NOIR to the Petitioner. The NOIR informs the company 
of this petition's proposed revocation based on the parent business's apparent termination of its 
operations before the petition's filing and the company's alleged willful misrepresentation of its 
inclusion in a multinational organization at the time of filing. The NOIR provided the Petitioner 33 
days in which to respond. Before receiving a response from the company, the Director revoked the 
petition on January 19, 2021, 43 days after the NOIR's issuance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director violated USCIS rules by not providing it with 
additional time to submit a NOIR response. A NOIR should "give the petitioner a reasonable period 
... (usually 30 days) to submit evidence in opposition to the revocation." 6 USCIS Policy Manual A., 
retired Adjudicator's Field Manual Chapter 20.3(b )(1 ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. As the 
Petitioner notes, however, because of hardships during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, USCIS 
extended petitioners' response periods to Agency requests and notices. See USCIS, Archive, "USCIS 
Extends Flexibility for Responding to Agency Requests," (Sept. 11, 2020), 
https://www.uscis.gov/archive. The Agency's September 11, 2020 notice states: "USCIS will 
consider a response to the above requests and notices received within 60 calendar days after the 
response due date set in the request or notice before taking any action." Id. The notice states its 
application to NOIRs, like the one the Petitioner received, issued between March 1, 2020 and January 
1, 2021. Id. Thus, before revoking the petition's approval, the Director should have given the 
company additional time to respond to the NOIR. 
As the Petitioner did not receive its full time allotment to respond to the NOIR and the Director has 
not seen the company's evidence on appeal, we will remand this matter. On remand, the Director 
should issue a new NOIR providing the company with a reasonable opportunity to respond. If 
supported by the record, the new NOIR may include any other potential revocation grounds. 
2 
Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should consider the entire record, including the 
evidence the Petitioner submitted on appeal and any materials it submits in response to the second 
NOIR. The Director should then issue a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3