Chen

MEMORANDUM

Because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)) received a report from an agent of the antifraud unit of the Consulate General indicating that Wah Yuet no longer maintained a qualifying relationship with its former parent company, see 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (b)(1)(C), 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (j)(2), substantial evidence supports USCIS’s determination that there was “good and sufficient cause” to revoke Wah Yuet’s 1140, 8 U.S.C. § 1155 . No record evidence compels the conclusion, contrary to that of USCIS, that such a qualifying relationship continued to exist “at the time the [revocation] decision was issued.” Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Seivs., 571 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir.2009). Indeed, no record evidence indicates any continuing relationship between Wah Yuet and its one-time parent corporation after 1997.

Furthermore, the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Chen’s appeal.' Substantial evidence supports the AAO’s conclusion that USCIS sent a Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NOIR”) to the proper address on file. The record does not compel the conclusion that written…