dismissed EB-3 Case: Culinary

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 6, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a restaurant operator, sought to employ the Beneficiary as a cook. It requested his 
classification as a skilled worker under the third-preference, immigrant category. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This 
employment-based, ''EB-3" category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national with at 
least two years of training or experience for lawful permanent resident status. 
After the filing's initial grant. the Director of the Vermont Service Center revoked the petition's 
approval. 1 The Director concluded that, as of approval, the Petitioner did not establish its required 
ability to pay the proffered wage. The Director also found that the later termination of the 
Petitioner's business automatically revoked the petition's approval? 
The matter is now before us on appeal by the Beneficiary's current employer. We will reject the 
appeal as improperly tiled.3 
Only an "affected party" may appeal a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decision. 
An affected party means ''the person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding.'' 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.3(a)(l )(iii)(B). In a revocation of an employment-based immigrant visa petition, the affected 
party is generally the petitioner, the prospective employer that tiled the petition. 
Here, the Beneficiary's current employer. a separate entity from the petitioning corporation. submits 
the appeal. The current employer does not assert. nor does the record establish. its status as a 
1 
At any time before a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence, USCIS may revoke a petition's approval for 
··good and sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § I 155. If supported by the record, a petition's erroneous 
approval may justify its revocation. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
2 There are no appeal rights for automatic revocations under 8 C.F.R. § 205.1. 
) The Petitioner did not respond to the Director's notice of intent to revoke. Rather a response was received from 
counsel, along with Forms G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, from both the 
Beneficiary and the Beneficiary's new employer. The Director considered the arguments made in response to the NOIR 
and issued a detailed decision revoking the petition's approval. The Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, was 
signed by counsel and submitted with only a Form G-28 executed by the Beneficiary's new employer. 
Matter ofB-
successor m interest of the Petitioner. 4 The new employer therefore lacks standing m this 
proceeding. 
We note that since this appeal's submission, USCIS has decided to treat certain "portability-eligible'' 
beneficiaries as affected parties in revocation proceedings. See Matter of' V-S-G-. Inc .. Adopted 
Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11. 2017). Matter of'V-S-G-, however. specifically declines to treat 
employers to whom beneficiaries port as affected parties. !d. at *12. Thus, the Beneficiary's current 
employer lacks standing in this matter. 
We must reject an appeal submitted by an entity that IS not entitled to tile it. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.3(a)(l )(v)(A)( /). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
Cite as Matter of B-, ID# 82739 (AAO Feb. 6, 2018) 
4 See Matter(){ Dial Auto Repair Shop. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 481 (Comm 'r 1986) (explaining how an employer may assume 
immigration sponsorship of a foreign national who initially received a job offer from a different business). 
2