Wah Yuet (usa), Inc. v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAH YUET (USA), INC.,
Plaintiff,
and
YONG LI CHEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General;
TOM RIDGE, Secretary of the United
States Department of Homeland Security;
DONALD NEUFELD, Director of the
United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services; US CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-55709
D.C. No. CV-04-09145-CAS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Submitted March 3, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD, IKUTA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)) received a report from an agent of the anti-
fraud unit of the Consulate General indicating that Wah Yuet no longer maintained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 I-
140, 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
Servs., 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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
notification of Wah Yuet’s change of address was filed with the INS prior to the
date of the NOIR. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2.
Because in the wake of the revocation of the I-140 Chen could not
demonstrate that he was “eligible to receive an immigrant visa” as required by 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a), USCIS did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s I-485
application for adjustment of status. The Portability Provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j),
is inapplicable to this case. See Herrera, 571 F.3d at 889.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --