dismissed EB-3 Case: Garment Manufacturing

PUBLIC COPY 
idslltifjriqg dats dekted to 
prevent ddy unwarranted 
invasion of persum1 privacy 
U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
' J 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional pursuant to section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(3) 
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. 
'+kobert P. ~iemannxhief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. It then came 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal on September 23, 
2004. On November 1, 2006, the petitioner filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the U.S. 
Central District Court of California. On February 26, 2007, this office notified the petitioner that it had elected to 
sua sponte reopen this matter pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(5)(ii). In this notice the AAO also 
provided the petitioner with notice of adverse information in the record and afforded the petitioner an opportunity 
to provide evidence that might overcome this information. This reopened appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. 
The petitioner is a garment manufacturer. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
quality control inspector. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment 
Certification approved by the Department of Labor, accompanied the petition. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning 
on the priority date of the visa petition. Therefore, the director denied the petition. The AAO affirmed the 
director's decision and dismissed a subsequent appeal. 
The procedural history of this case is documented in the record and incorporated into the decision. Further 
elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. 
As set forth in this office's letter dated February 26, 2007, a central issue in this case is whether the petitioner 
remains in operation as a viable business. 
The AAO reviews de novo issues raised in decisions challenged on appeal. See Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 
9 (2d Cir. 1989). The AAO considers all evidence properly in the record including evidence properly submitted 
on appeal or in response to notification that the AAO has reopened a matter on its own motion.' 
On February 26, 2007, this office notified the petitioner that according to the records at the California Business 
Portal website maintained by the Office of the California Secretary of State, the petitioner is currently dissolved. See 
http://kepler .ss.ca. gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCoNumbe~C 1 763 997&printer=yes (accessed March 3 0, 
2007). 
This office also notified the petitioner that if it is currently dissolved, this is material to whether the job offer, as 
outlined on the immigrant petition filed by this organization, is a bona fide job offer. Moreover, any such 
concealment of the true status of the organization by the petitioner seriously compromises the credibility of the 
remaining evidence in the record. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 586 (BIA 1988)(stating that doubt cast on 
any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition.) It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies 
in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. See Id. 
This office allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to provide evidence that the records maintained by the Office 
of the California Secretary of State were not accurate and that the petitioner remains in operation as a viable 
business or was in operation during the pendency of the petition and appeal. More than 30 days have passed since 
1 
The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which are 
incorporated into the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(a)(l). Submissions are also allowed after a matter has been 
reopened by the Service pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(5)(ii). The record in the instant case 
provides no reason to preclude consideration of any documents newly submitted on appeal or in response to 
notification that the AAO reopened the matter on its own motion. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 
1988). 
Page 3 
February 26, 2007 and the petitioner has failed to respond to this office's request for a certificate of good standing 
or other proof that the petitioner remains in operation as a viable business or was in operation from the July 19, 
1999 priority date onwards. Thus, this reopened appeal will be dismissed as aband~ned.~ 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 136 1. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 
 On March 9, 2007, the petitioner requested that its complaint in U.S. district court in California be 
dismissed.