sustained EB-1C Case: Textile Trading

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
~deatgflng data deleted to 
20  ass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privseg. 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
 "-3 
PUBLIC COPY <,a J 
{ 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 97 155 5 1699 
 APR 2 6 2006 
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. 9 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. 
mobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, California Service Center, approved the employment-based petition.' 
Approval of the immigrant visa petition was subsequently revoked by the director on March 10, 2006. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on certification from the director. The record 
reflects that the petitioner submitted a letter prior to the director's revocation requesting that the immigrant 
petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the AAO will withdraw the director's decision. 
The petitioner filed the instant immigrant petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or 
executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
$ 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California that is 
engaged in the business of trading textiles. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 
Counsel for the petitioner submitted a letter, dated February 22, 2006, requesting that the immigrant petition 
be withdrawn. In a decision dated March 10, 2006, the director revoked approval of the immigrant petition, 
concluding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that: (1) the beneficiary would be employed by the United 
States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; (2) a qualifying relationship existed between the 
foreign and United States entities at the time of filing the petition; or (3) at the time the priority date was 
established, the petitioner demonstrated its ability to pay the beneficiary his proffered salary. The director 
certified the matter to the AAO. 
Upon review, in view of the petitioner's request that the petition be withdrawn, the director's revocation of 
approval of the petition is erroneous. As noted in Matter of Cintron, 16 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1976), "hlust as 
any United States citizen or lawful permanent resident may file a visa petition in behalf of an alien, so may he 
withdraw the petition before a decision has been rendered." Accordingly, the director's decision is 
withdrawn. The record will reflect that the immigrant petition was withdrawn by the 
petitioner.2 
ORDER: The director's March 10, 2006 decision is withdrawn. The immigrant visa petition filed by the 
petitioner in behalf of the beneficiary is withdrawn. 
I 
 On March 21, 2003, following approval of the immigrant visa petition, the director reopened the matter, and 
consequently issued a notice of decision in which he determined that the petitioner had not established its 
eligibility to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive. On appeal, the AAO withdrew 
the director's decision, stating that he had failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 205.2, requiring 
that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) issue a notice of intent to revoke approval of the petition. 
The AAO remanded the matter to the director. The record reflects that the director issued a notice of intent to 
revoke, however, the notice was sent to the petitioner's counsel at an outdated address. The AAO again 
withdrew the director's decision to revoke approval of the petition, and remanded the matter to the director 
with instructions to resend the notice of intent to revoke to the correct address of record. 
2 
 The AAO notes that while a request for withdrawal precludes a decision on the merits, a withdrawal will not 
prevent the director from entering a separate finding of fraud on a petition if the petitioner is found to have 
attempted to procure a visa through misrepresentation or fraud.