In a 12/21/2011 decision, the AAO upheld termination of a regional center approval where the plan before the AAO involved job preservation, not job creation, and the investment was not to be made in a troubled business.

Discussion
The Director, California Service Center (CSC), approved the applicant's proposal for designation as a regional center. Subsequently, the director issued a notice of intent to terminate and ultimately terminated the designation. The applicant filed a motion to reopen and reconsider before the director. After issuing a notice seeking clarification and additional evidence, the director reaffirmed the termination on motion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on certification. The AAO will affirm the director's decision to terminate the regional center approval.

The applicant was a designated regional center pursuant to section610(c) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1874(1992), as amended by section 116 of Pub. L. No. 105-119, III Stat. 2440(1997); section402 of Pub. L. No. 106-396,114 Stat. 1637(2000) and section11037 of Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758(2002). Regional centers allow pooled investments through the employment creation visa classification program set forth at section 203(b)(5)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act),8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5). The matter before the AAOis a termination of that designation.

Based on the totality of the evidence available, the AAO will affirm the director's initial basis of termination, reaffirmed by reference in the certified decision dated May 24, 20II. Specifically, the plan now before the AAO is essentially one of job preservation, not job creation. Job preservation is only permissible where the investment is in a troubled business, 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(ii). The applicant has not demonstrated, or even claimed, that the investors will be investing in a troubled business.

Procedural History
On June 19, 2009, the director designated the applicant as a regional center pursuant to section 610(c) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395,106 Stat. 1874(1992), as amended by section 116 of Pub. L. No. 105-119, III Stat. 2440(1997); section 402 of Pub. L. No. 106•396, 114 Stat. 1637 (2000) and section 11037 of Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758(2002). On May 4, 2010, upon reviewing updated information the applicant provided to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the director issued a notice of intent to terminate the applicant's regional center status pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6). After considering the applicant's response, the director issued a second notice of intent to terminate on August 10, 2010. The director considered the applicant's response to the second notice and terminated the applicant's regional center status onOctober20, 2010.

On November 19, 2010, the applicant filed a motion to reopen and reconsider. The director issued a request for additional evidence on December 14, 2010. The director considered the applicant's response and issued a final notice of termination on May 24, 2011. The director certified the final decision to terminate the regional center to the AAO pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.4. A response brief is now part of the record of proceeding.

The final notice of termination the director certified to the AAO on May 24, 2011 affirms the October 20, 2010 notice of termination. The final notice of termination the director certified to the AAO on May 24, 2011 affirms the October20, 2010 notice of termination and rejects the analysis submitted on motion.

Analysis
USCIS may terminate the regional center's designation upon a determination that the regional center no longer serves the purpose of promoting economic growth. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(mX6). The issue to be resolved by the AAO in the instant case is whether the applicant continues to serve the purpose of promoting economic growth including through job creation.

The regional center must be terminated because the applicant is seeking to invest capital only after the jobs in question have already been created. DPSG and Plastipak began hiring in December2009. As of June 2010, the IWWTF was 90percentcomplete. Regardless of the stage of financing the investors propose to provide, it remains that the jobs for which the applicant wishes to receive credit already exist. Notably, the record does not show that the applicant madea commitment to provide later-stage financing at the outset of the project. Instead, the applicant appears to have decided to commit capital toward later-stage financing only after the initial stages of the project that created the jobs in question were already complete.

The applicant's argument that the IWWTF will be a ghost plant if it does not obtain bridge financing is inherently an argument that touches on preservation of jobs, not creation of jobs. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205 .6(j)(4 )(ii) allows investors to be credited with preserved jobs, but only for investments in a troubled business. The applicant has never claimed or documented that the alien investors will be investing in a troubled business. As such, they may not rely on job preservation arguments to establish eligibility for benefits under the EB-5visa program.

Finally, the director did not err in terminating the applicant's regional center designation without further analyzing the projects other than the IWWTF as the applicant had expressly requested that those projects no longer be considered part of the regional center onSeptember2, 2010.

The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the applicant. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The applicant has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the decision of the director terminating the regional center will be affirmed.

Order
The director's May 24, 2011 decision is affirmed; the regional center designation is terminated.