dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export Trade

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC-97-093-5 1307 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: fEB I $ ?m 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
&be* P. ~iernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC-97-093-5 1307 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant petition was initially approved by the Director, Vermont Service Center. 
Upon further review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit 
sought. Accordingly, the director properly served the petitioner with a noti~e of his intention to revoke the 
approval of the nonimmigrant petition, and his reasons therefore. After the petitioner failed to submit a 
timely response, the director revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimrnigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its President as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the state of New York 
that is engaged in import and export trade. The petitioner claims that it is a subsidiary of B ., located in Beijing City, China. The director approved the non~rnrmgrant 
petition on February 28, 1997. 
Based on further review of the record, the director initially issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval on 
January 5, 1998. Upon discovering that the petitioner relocated to a new address, the director issued a second 
identical notice to the new address on May 8, 1998. The director determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that: (1) the beneficiary possesses the requisite managerial or executive experience abroad; (2) the 
foreign entity is actively engaged in doing business; (3) the beneficiary's proposed employment involves 
executive or managerial authority over the new operation; and (4) the intended United States operation, within 
one year of the approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position. The director further 
stated that the petitioner submitted numerous altered documents. After the petitioner failed to respond to the 
notice of intent to revoke, the director revoked the approval of the petition on September 18, 1998. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence addressing the issues discussed by the 
director in the notice of intent to revoke the petition. The evidence of record clearly shows that both the 
notice of intent to revoke and the final notice of revocation were properly sent to the petitioner's address of 
record. See 8 C.F.R. 103.5a. Therefore, the AAO concludes that the notice of intent to revoke the petition 
was properly issued and delivered to the petitioner. 
Generally, the director's decision to revoke the approval of a petition will be affirmed, notwithstanding the 
submission of evidence on appeal, where a petitioner fails to offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to a 
properly issued notice of intention to revoke. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 570 (BIA 1988). For 
this reason, the decision of the director will be affirmed and the appeal will be dismissed. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1155, states that "[tlhe Attorney General may, at any time, for what he 
deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204 
[of the Act]." 
A notice of intent to revoke approval of a visa petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" 
where the evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a 
denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. Matter of Li, 20 
I&N Dec. 700, 701 (BIA 1993); Matter of Arias, supra at 569-70; Matter of Ho, supra at 590; Matter of 
EAC-97-093-5 1307 
Page 3 
Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987). The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record 
at the time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in 
rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. Matter of Ho, supra at 590. 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient cause for the 
revocation of a petition's approval, provided the director's revised opinion is supported by the record. Id. 
Notwithstanding the Service's burden to show "good and sufficient cause" in proceedings to revoke the 
approval of a visa petition, the petitioner still bears the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id. at 589; Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1968); see also Tongatapu Woodcraff of 
Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1984). 
In the present case, the director did raise sufficient factual issues to support the revocation. The notice of 
intent to revoke and the subsequent revocation were based on evidence that was in the record at the time the 
notice was issued. The petitioner did not offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to the notice of intent to 
revoke and has not overcome the deficiencies raised by the director. 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's submission of evidence on appeal, the petitioner failed to offer any 
explanation or rebuttal to the director's properly issued notice of intent to revoke. Accordingly, pursuant to 
Matter of Arias, supra, the director's decision to revoke the petition's approval will not be disturbed. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.