remanded EB-1C Case: Janitorial Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 7 2007 
SRC 06 800 1 1628 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON 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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
" .a 
--er=-- 
(9- -- -& 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The matter will be remanded for further 
consideration. 
The petitioner is a Florida entity that was incorporated in 1998. It currently claims to be a provider of 
janitorial contractor services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
On September 14, 2006, the director denied the petition on three independent grounds for ineligibility: 1) the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; 
2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity; and 3) the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of its claimed affiliation with 
the beneficiary's foreign employer. In reaching the conclusion regarding the petitioner's eligibility, the 
director noted that the petitioner responded to but failed to provide the information requested in the request 
for additional evidence (RFE) issued in April of 2006. 
However, a closer review of the record shows that the director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) dated 
April 4, 2006 and that the petitioner's response reflected adverse information noted in the NOID, which was 
improperly issued, as it pertained to a visa category other than the one indicated in the petitioner's Form 1-140. 
The AAO further notes that service records do not show the issuance of an RFE' to which the director 
referred in his decision. 
While the AAO acknowledges that the issuance of an RFE is not required in the denial of every petition, the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8) state that when the petitioner fails to submit initial evidence in support of 
the petition, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) shall ask the petitioner to submit the missing 
evidence and may request that the petitioner submit additional evidence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.50)(3)(i) states that the following qualifies as initial evidence: 1) evidence of the beneficiary's qualifying 
overseas employment, 2) evidence of a qualifying relationship between the U.S. petitioner and the 
beneficiary's foreign employer, and 3) evidence that the petitioner had been doing business for one year prior 
to filing the petition. In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2) states that proof of the petitioner's 
ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage is also deemed initial evidence. The director clearly 
determined that the petitioner failed to submit some of the evidence that is enumerated in 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(j)(3)(i). Therefore, given the absence of evidence of ineligibility in the record, an RFE was warranted 
in the present matter. 
Accordingly, due to the service center's failure to comply with 8 C.F.R. 5fj 103.2(b)(8) and 204.5(j)(3)(i), the 
AAO will withdraw the director's decision and remand the matter back to the director for further action. The 
director shall properly issue an WE, which will instruct the petitioner to submit all of the missing initial 
evidence as well as any additional evidence the director deems necessary to adjudicate the present petition. 
' Although the record of proceeding contains a copy of an RFE dated April 2, 2006, service records do not show that it 
was sent either to the petitioner or its counsel. 
Page 3 
ORDER: 
 The decision of the director dated September 14, 2006 is hereby withdrawn. The 
matter is remanded for further action and consideration consistent with the above 
discussion and entry of a new decision, which shall be certified to the AAO for 
review.