dismissed EB-3 Case: Food Service

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 24, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a former operator of a doughnut shop, sought to employ the Beneficiary as a 
doughnut maker. It requested his classification under the third-preference, immigrant category as an 
"other worker." Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(3)(iii). This employment-based, "EB-3" category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a 
foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a job requiring less than two years of 
training or experience. 
After the filing's initial grant, the Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the petition's 
approval and denied the Petitioner's following motions to reopen and reconsider. See section 205 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155 (allowing a petition's revocation "at any time" for "good and sufficient 
cause"). On appeal, we remanded the matter, finding that the record did not establish the Director's 
issuance of a required notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) to the Petitioner or counsel. See Matter of 
C- Corp., ID# 1066978 (AAO Mar. 1, 2018). After properly mailing an NOIR on remand, the 
Director again revoked the petition's approval, concluding that the Petitioner willfully 
misrepresented the bonafides of the job opportunity. 
The matter is again before us on appeal. The Petitioner denies the alleged misrepresentation and 
argues that it demonstrated the availability of the offered position to U.S. workers. 1 
Only an "affected patty" may appeal a decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i). The term means "the 
person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). We must reject 
"[ a ]n appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled to file it" as improperly filed. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
1 After the appeal's filing, the Director issued another NOIR additionally alleging that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
the Beneficiary's qualifying experience for the offered position. Unless adjudicators withdraw their revocation 
decisions, however, they may not issue NOIRs after the filing of revocation appeals. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(iii), 
(iv) (requiring adjudicators to promptly forward appeals and their corresponding records to the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) if the officers decline to treat the appeals as motions and withdraw the revocations). Thus, although the 
Director forwarded the Petitioner's response to the most recent NOIR to us, the appeal does not address the additional, 
alleged revocation ground. 
Matter of C- Corp. 
Here, the petitioning corporation concedes that, before filing this appeal, it sold its operations and 
dissolved. Online, government records confirm the Petitioner's dissolution in 2015. See Mich. 
Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, Corps. Div., "Search for a business entity," 
https://cofs.lara.state.mi.us/corpweb/CorpSearch/CorpSearch.aspx (last visited Mar. 6, 2019). 
As a dissolved Michigan corporation, the Petitioner can continue its corporate existence only "for 
the purposes of winding up its affairs." Mich. Comp. Law § 450.1833; see also Flint Cold Storage 
v. Dep 't of Treasury, 776 N.W.2d 387, 395 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that, after winding up its 
affairs within a "reasonable time," a dissolved Michigan corporation "ceases to exist for all 
purposes"). Because the Petitioner cannot exist to offer the Beneficiary permanent, future 
employment, it lacks legal standing to file this appeal. Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l), we 
must therefore reject the appeal as improperly filed. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
Cite as Matter of C- Corp., ID# 3355257 (AAO May 24, 2019) 
2