remanded EB-1C Case: Retail Trade

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
PUBLIC Copy and Immigration 
identieing data deleted to 
 Services 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: sE~ 0 6 2@7 
SRC 03 205 5 1282 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETlTIONER: 
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. 
6Aa R ert ann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Ofice 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, revoked approval of the immigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as 
untimely filed. However, the AAO will remand the matter to be treated as a motion. 
The petitioner is a retail trade and food store seeking 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 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
Noting that the record was deficient, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOR) dated February 
14, 2006, notifying the petitioner of the adverse findings with regard to evidence provided to establish 
eligibility. Specifically, the director conveyed his doubt as to whether the petitioner submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that the following criteria were met: I) the beneficiary would be employed in the United 
States in a qualifyrng managerial or executive capacity; 2) the petitioner has a qualifyrng relationship with a 
foreign entity; 3) both the U.S. petitioner and the foreign entity with whom it claims to have a qualifjrlng 
relationship are actively doing business; and 3) the beneficiary was employed abroad for the requisite time 
period in a qualifyrng managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner was allowed 30 days in which to 
address the director's findings. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to respond to the NOR and revoked the approval of the 
petition on May 6, 2006. The revocation was entirely based on the finding that the petitioner failed to 
respond to the NOIR. 
On appeal, counsel provides evidence in the form of a FedEx shipping label containing the tracking number, 
which shows that the petitioner provided a timely response to the NOIR and that the response was received at 
the designated Citizenshp and Imrmgration Services (CIS) office in Dallas, Texas on March 15, 2006. 
Therefore, the petitioner has submitted new evidence addressing the sole ground for revocation. 
However, with regard to time restrictions for appeals filed with the AAO, in order to properly file an appeal 
from a revocation, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2(d) provides that the affected party must file the appeal 
within 15 days of service of the unfavorable decision. In the present matter, the decision revoking the 
approval of the petitioner's Form 1-140 was issued on May 6, 2006. The petitioner's appeal was received on 
May 25,2006. As the appeal was submitted beyond the 15 days provided by the above cited regulation, the 
AAO must reject the appeal as untimely filed. 
Notwithstanding the untimely filing, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an 
untimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal must be 
treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. A motion to reopen must state the 
new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, 
when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(3). 
Upon review of the facts and evidence in the present matter, the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence 
to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
Additionally, the AAO finds that the director's basis for revocation was invalid. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
9 205.2(c), states the following, in part: 
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 present matter, the director's adverse decision was entirely based on his finding that the petitioner failed 
to respond to the NOR. The specific reasons for finding the petitioner ineligible, which were cited in the 
NOR, were not incorporated into the director's decision in which the approval of the petition was revoked. 
Moreover, the record shows that the director did not provide any instructions on how to appeal the revocation, 
thereby suggesting that the matter was treated as an abandoned petition and, thus, would not be subject to 
appeal according to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2@)(15). However, an adverse decision in the matter of 
a previously approved petition is not identical to a matter where a petition had not yet been approved and 
where eligibility is still being considered. With regard to the latter, a petitioner's failure to respond to a notice 
requesting additional information (WE) may result in an adverse decision in which the director denies the 
petition based on the determination that it has been abandoned as suggested by the lack of a response to the 
WE. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(13). The same is not true of a matter where prior approval of a petition is 
being revoked. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2 contain specific provisions and steps that must be taken by CIS in order to 
issue a revocation on notice. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2(b) requires CIS to issue a notice of its intent 
to revoke approval of the petition and allow the petitioner time to address the grounds alleged for revocation. 
As previously stated, 8 C.F.R. 9 205.2(c) specifically requires that in matters where an adverse decision is 
warranted, the decision must state the specific reasons for revocation. In the present matter, the director failed 
to comply with 8 C.F.R. 4 205.2(c). 
Accordingly, the matter is hereby remanded and shall be treated as a motion requiring a full decision based on 
the merits of the case. The director is instructed to take into account the AAO's comments and observations 
in making a subsequent determination. That being said, the record suggests that the petitioner is not eligible 
for the immigration benefit sought. As such, the director shall review the record in its entirety and consider 
all of the evidence and information submitted thus far, including the petitioner's timely response to the NOR, 
prior to issuing another decision. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected. The matter is remanded to the director for consideration as a 
motion to reopen.