remanded EB-1C Case: Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services fir 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 98 014 52081 FEB 8 1 ma 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficia 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Sectibn 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
2. 
( I 
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. 
aobert P. Wiemann, Director 
/ Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the employment-based petition 
on November 5, 1997. On March 21,2003, the director issued a Service Motion to Reopen with a request for 
further evidence. On July 23, 2003 and December 1, 2003, thcdirector issued further requests for evidence. 
The director denjed the petition on May 1,2004. The matter ignow before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The petition will be remanded to the Califopia Service Center. 
On March 21, 2003, the director issued to the petitioner a Citizenship - and Immigration Service (CIS) Motion 
to Reopen pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a), providing the petitioner with eighty-four days, or 
twelve weeks, from the date of the notice to submit requested evidence. The director attached Form 1-797 
asking that the petitioner provide specific documentation related to a qualifying relationship between the 
petitioning organization and the foreign entity, the beneficiary's employment in the United States in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity, and the petitioner's business operations in the United States. The 
petitioner provided a response on June 9,2003. 
On July 23, 2003, the director again requested further eGidence on the issue of the petitioner's qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. The petitioner responded on October 10, 2003. On 
December 1, 2003, the director requested further evidence on the issue of the petitioner's qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer, on the issue of the beneficiary's position in a managerial 
or executive capacity for the petitlo-ner,-"and on* the iszue of the petitioner's doing business. In the December 1, 
&.4- -. " ' 
2003 request, the-director emphasized certain requests by bolding and enlarging the'typographical font used to 
make the request. The director also questioned the veracity of some of the petitioner's previously submitted 
information. The petitioner provided its response on February 19,2004. 
ijn May 1, 2004, the director denied the petition, determining that the petitioner had not established a 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer or that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity for the U.S. petitioner. The director indicated that the petitioner could file 
an appeal that must reach the Service Center within 30 days of the date of decision or within 33 
days if the decision was mailed. 
On May 27, 2004, 26 days after the decision, the petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, 
indicating that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted within 30 days. The petitioner also submitted a 
motion to reopen and reconsider, on May 27, 2004. The director denied the motion to reopen and reconsider 
on June 22,2004, determining that no new evidence or law had been submitted. 
The record of proceeding does not contain a brief and/or evjdence submitted in support of the-appeal. The 
record of proceeding does not contain an appeal from the director's June 22, 2004 decision. The record of 
proceeding does indicate that it is "Part 1" of a two-part file. "Part 2" of the record has not been forwarded to 
the AAO. 
Following approval of an immigrant petition, the director may revoke approval of the petition in accordance 
with the statute and regulations. Specifically, Section 205 of the Act,,8 U.S.C. 5 1155 allows the Attorney 
General, at any time, for what he deems to be "good and sufficient cause," to revoke the approval of a visa 
petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 205.2 provides that a CIS officer may revoke approval of an immigrant 
petition following notice to the petitioner of the intent to revoke and after providing the petitioner with an 
"opportunity to offer evidence in support of the petition . . . and in opposition to the grounds alleged for 
revocation of the approval." Pursuant to Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987), the director's notice 
's' Page 3 
h 
of intent to revoke must include a specific statement of the facts and supporting evidence underlying the 
proposed action. Similarly, the petitioner must be advised of derogatory evidence of which it is unaware, and 
must be provided with an opportunity to rebut the evidence and submit supporting documentation. Id. at 45 1. 
Further, where a notice of intent to revoke "is based on an unsupported statement or an unstated presumption, 
or where the petitioner is unaware and has not been advised of derogatory evidence, revocation of the visa 
petition cannot be sustained, even if the petitioner did not respond to the notice of intention to revoke." Id. at 
452. 
With regard to a director's decision to revoke, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 205.2(c) further indicates: 
If, upon reconsideration, the approval previously granted is revoked, the director shall 
provide the petitioner or the self-petitioner with a written notification of the decision that 
explains the specific reasons for the revocation. 
In the instant matter, rather. than issuing a notice of intent to revoke, the director issued a CIS motion to 
reopen pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a). Generally speaking, a CIS motion to reopen is 
reserved for applications, suchkas -I-5393---Applicat-ion---to ExtendIChange Nonimmigrant Status, 1-90? 
Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, or 1-765, Application for ~m~loiiiient Authorization. The 
. . . . 
proper.course of action'in revoking approval of an immigrant or nonimmigrant petition is to issue a'notice of 
". ' 
' "' 
' '. intent to revoke pursuant to the appropriate regulation. As noted above, the petitioner.must be notified of the 
specific facts.and evidence underlying the proposed revocation and be afforded an opportunity to rebut the 
evidence. There are specific standards for revoking the approval of an immigrant petition; if the director does 
not satisfy the legally-mandated requirements to revoke an approval by issuing a notice of intent to revoke for 
"good and sufficient cause," or any other required standard, the approval is not properly revoked. As the 
director did not issue a notice of intent to revoke, the instant matter will be remanded to the California Service 
Center for further proceedings taking into consideration the proper methodology used when revoking 
approval of an immigrant petition. 
ORDER: The petition is remanded to the director for further proceedings.