remanded EB-1C Case: Optical Services

FT.JBL~c COP y 
identifying dnta deleted to 
prevent chly ww-td 
invasion ofpmonrl privacy 
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: DEC 2 7 
IN RE: 
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. 3 1 153(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. 
/-- 
---- &-TTe 
Robert P. ~iernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 022 50896 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the nonirnrnigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. The case will 
be remanded to the Texas Service Center to be treated as a motion. 
The petitioner is a provider of optical services and items and seeks 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)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
Noting that the record was deficient, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) dated June 
15, 2005. Although the petitioner's 12-week response period had not expired, the director determined that the 
petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence and issued a decision dated August 27, 2005 denying the 
petition for abandonment, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(13). 
Despite the director's improper determination that the petition had been abandoned, the director properly 
noted that no appeal would lie from the decision. Regardless, the petitioner submitted an appeal on 
September 7,2005. 
The regulations provide that no appeal lies fi-om the denial of a petition for abandonment. See 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.2(b)(15). As there is no appeal from the director's denial, the petitioner's appeal must be rejected. 
However, as the record shows, the director's finding that the petition had been abandoned was incorrect. 
Although the petitioner raised this point again in a timely but separately filed motion to reopen and reconsider 
dated September 27, 2005, the director forwarded the matter to the AAO, despite the AAO's lack of 
jurisdiction either over the appeal or the motion. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(ii), the director's error 
must be addressed by the Texas Service Center, the office that issued the latest decision in this proceeding. 
Based on a preliminary review of the record, it appears that a motion to reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
103.5(a)(3) should be granted. 
Accordingly, the matter is remanded. The director is instructed to hlly review the petitioner's motion for the 
purpose of granting the motion and considering the response to the WE. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is hereby rejected. The matter is remanded to the director for a new 
decision which, if adverse, shall be certified to the AAO for review.