dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export Of Oriental Rugs

~data.1eted to
preventclearlyunWlll~
invasionofpersonalpnvacy
PUBLJCCOPY
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Room 3000
Washington, DC 20529
us.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
SRC 02 245 50597
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 0 5 2001
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(l5)(L)
IN 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.
R~~
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.
The petitioner is a Texas corporation that claims to be a subsidiary of MIS Ethnic Zarab Khana Saray, located
in Kashmir, India. The petitioner claims to be engaged in the import and export of oriental rugs, and seeks to
extend the employment of its president as an L-l A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section
101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The initial new
office petition (SRC 01 201 52982) was approved on August 13,2001. The petitioner 's request to extend the
beneficiary's status based on that petition was filed on August 12,2002 (SRC 02 24550597).
On the basis of new information received and upon further review of the record, the director determined that
the beneficiary was not eligible for the benefit sought under the initial new office petition. Accordingly, the
director properly served the petitioner with a notice of her intention to revoke the approval of the
nonimmigrant visa petition (SRC 01 201 52982) and her reasons therefore on July 1, 2002. Specifically, the
director noted that the beneficiary was involved in a traffic stop, at which time he stated that he was on his
way to "lay carpet." The director determined that the task of "laying carpet" was not a qualifying duty for an
executive employee, upon which basis the beneficiary 's L-IA visa status had been granted. In addition, the
director noted that the beneficiary appeared to have provided false information to consular officials in order to
obtain his visa . With regard to the revocation, the director stated: "[y]ou are afforded thirty days from receipt
of this notice to submit information in rebuttal. If you do not respond, the petition will be revoked as of the
date of the approval. " On September 20, 2002, the director revoked the initial petition, noting that the
petitioner failed to respond to the notice of intent to revoke issued on July 1, 2002 .
On November 1,2002, the director denied the petitioner's request to extend the beneficiary's status (SRC 02
245 50597), noting that the initial petition upon which the extension request was based had been revoked on
September 20, 2002. The director further noted that, as a result of the initial petition's revocation , the
beneficiary failed to maintain his previously accorded status, and thus the request for extension under the
initial petition must be denied.
On November 27, 2002, counsel for the petitioner filed a motion to reopen the nonimmigrant visa petition
(SRC 01 201 52982). In the motion,the petitioner claimed that the evidence requested by the director in the
July 1, 2002 notice of intent to revoke had been forwarded to the service on August 1, 2002 and was received
by the service on August 2 , 2002. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner submits a copy of
the United States Postal Service 's shipment history , verifying that the petitioner 's response was received by
the Texas Service Center on August 2, 2002, Counsel further explained that since the beneficiary's initial
L-IA status was due to expire on August 12,2002 , a timely extension was filed pending the service center's
review of the petitioner's response to the notice of intent to revoke the initial petition. Finally, counsel asserts
that neither she nor the petitioner received a copy of the revocation of the initial petition (SRC 01 201 52982),
and claims that until the denial of the extension request was issued on November 1, 2002, they were unaware
that the petition had been revoked.
On October 12, 2006, the director denied the motion and affirmed the revocation of the petition. The director
noted that the information pertaining to the contents of the package sent to the Service Center was
handwritten, as opposed to typed in conformance with the other information on the receipt . The director
Page 3
concluded, therefore, that the handwritten portion was likely added at a later date, particularly in light of the
fact that the sender and addressee information, which was typed, is significantly faded in relation to the
handwritten portion. Accordingly, the director concluded that the information requested in the notice of
intent to revoke had not been submitted in a timely manner, and thus denied the motion.
The matter before the AAO is whether the director erred in denying the petitioner's request to extend the
beneficiary's L-IA status (SRC 02 24550597).
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(i)provides in pertinent part:
A petition extension may be filed only if the validity of the original petition has not expired.
In this matter, the initial nonimmigrant petition upon which the request for extension is based was revoked on
September 20, 2002. As discussed above, the revocation of the initial petition was reopened by the director
pursuant to counsel's motion on November 27, 2002. The director denied the motion and affirmed the
revocation of the initial petition on October 12, 2006.
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's denial of the extension.' The petitioner's request to extend
the beneficiary's status must be denied, for there is no basis upon which to extend a revoked petition. Once a
petition has been revoked, it is retroactively revoked to the date of its original approval. As such, it can no
longer be considered valid for purposes of a subsequent petition extension. In other words, the petition's
revocation effectively severs any bridge that may have been initially created for any future immigration
benefit dependent on said petition. Since the beneficiary's status was revoked on September 20, 2002, the
request for extension cannot be approved and is therefore denied.
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd. 345 F.3d 683
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews
appeals on a de novo basis).
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
! Although the director focuses primarily on the extension of stay request, a benefit which has no right of
appeal, and while she may have confused stay with status, it is clear that the director's conclusion to deny the
petition extension was correct for the reasons stated herein.