dismissed O-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
Date: JAN t 6 ZOl4 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizen ship and Imm igration Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Offi ce (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Natio nality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
Thi s is a non-prec ede nt decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-prec edent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consider ation, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form 1-2908 
instructions at http: //www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenbe 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. It then 
came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. On November 25, 2013, this office 
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. 
The petitioner claims to be a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. It seeks to classify the 
beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien with extraordinary ability in business. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(i), this office notified the petitioner on November 25, 2013 that, according 
to the records at the Florida Division of Corporations website, the petitioner is currently dissolved. See Florida 
Division of Corporations, Florida Department of State, <http://search.sunbiz.org/lnquiry/CorporationsSearch/ 
SearchResultDetail/EntityName /dom>(accessed on October 16, 2013.) 
This office also notified the petitioner that if it is currently dissolved, this fact is material to its eligibility for the 
requested visa. Specifically, the petitioner's dissolution raises serious questions about whether it continues to 
exist as an importing employer. See section 214(c)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S. C.§ 1184(c)(1). 
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). 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. /d. 
This office allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to provide evidence to rebut the finding that the petitioner 
has been dissolved. More than 30 days have passed 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. 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl , 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.