AAO January 16, 2014

Case Information
USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO)
Date: January 16, 2014
Office: Vermont Service Center
Type: Non-Precedent
Petitioner: O-1A Visa in Business
Profession: N/A
Agent: No
Citation: AAO Jan162014_01D8101


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)(O)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(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/Inquiry/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. Id.

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. DOT, 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.

AAO Jan162014_01D8101