¶1*356Michael E. McKenzie, Annandale, Va., for appellant.
¶2David B. Smith (Elsie L. Munsell, U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va.; Stuart I. Silverman, Philadelphia, Pa., on brief), for appellees.
¶3Before SPROUSE and SNEEDEN,* Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.
¶6Charan Dass Taneja appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Attorney General and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in Taneja’s action to compel INS to issue him a “sixth preference visa.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(6) (1982). The district court concluded that the INS acted within its authority in denying the visa application which Taneja’s prospective employer had filed on Taneja’s behalf and that the employer’s subsequent withdrawal of the application eliminated the basis for granting the visa. We affirm.
¶7As often happens, this immigration matter has followed a tortured route to its final resolution. The INS District Director denied Taneja’s sixth preference petition on September 9, 1981. Taneja filed an appeal to the INS Regional Commissioner who denied it on July 6, 1982, then he filed a motion to reopen which the Regional Commissioner denied on August 17, 1983, and finally he filed a second motion to reopen which was not acted upon. After Taneja brought this action in district court, the INS certified the petition to the INS Commissioner for reconsideration, and on August 8, 1984, the Associate Commissioner affirmed the denial of the petition. The district court upheld the denial of the petition, and Taneja appealed to this court.
¶8Taneja, a citizen of India, was admitted to the United States in 1976 as a secretarial employee at the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. Taneja subsequently applied for employment with TELE-SEC Temporary Personnel, Inc. (TELE-SEC).1 In 1980, the United States Department of Labor, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14), certified that a shortage existed of United States workers qualified, willing and available to perform typing and other office services in the location in which Taneja was to work, and that his employment by TELE-SEC would not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of American workers. The Department of Labor certification is a prerequisite to the issuance of a sixth preference visa “to qualified immigrants who are capable of performing specified skilled or unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which a shortage of employable and willing persons exists in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(6). Shortly after the Department of Labor granted certification, Taneja and TELE-SEC entered into a one-year employment contract conditioned upon Taneja’s receipt of a sixth preference visa and upon satisfactory job performance. In November 1980, TELE-SEC submitted the visa application to the INS on Taneja’s behalf.
¶9In March 1981, the INS District Director requested additional information from TELE-SEC, and asked, inter alia, whether an employment contract existed between TELE-SEC and Taneja. TELE-SEC’s counsel, who is also Taneja’s counsel in the action before this court, responded that a *357contract existed “as evidenced by the [Department of Labor certification form] ... of which you have the original.” On September 9, 1981, the District Director denied the application based on his finding that the contract between Taneja and TELE-SEC did not guarantee full-time employment. TELE-SEC appealed the denial to the INS Regional Commissioner.2 The Regional Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the contract was unex-ecuted and “accordingly fails to establish anything” and that the terms of the contract did not guarantee full-time work nor establish that Taneja intended to work for TELE-SEC full time, but “merely [bound] a prospective employee to financial penalty if they [sic] fail to work 1200 hours."
¶10In December 1982, TELE-SEC’s counsel made a motion to reopen the case on the grounds that the INS had changed its position and had approved similar sixth preference visa applications which TELE-SEC had submitted.3 Taneja also submitted an affidavit indicating that he intended to accept assignments from TELE-SEC. On August 17, 1983, the Regional Commissioner denied the motion to reopen on the ground that “the only ‘contract’ being unexecuted, there is in fact no executed contract.” Taneja moved again to reopen the case and, although noting that the INS file already contained a copy of the executed contract, sent another executed copy.4 The INS took no action on this second motion, but ordered Taneja to leave the United States or to face deportation. Taneja remained in the United States beyond the deportation date and brought this action in district court.
¶11The INS then moved sua sponte to reopen the administrative proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.4. The INS contacted TELE-SEC regarding the visa petition, and TELE-SEC responded on July 30,1984 that it no longer wished to sponsor Taneja and that Taneja had not been in contact with TELE-SEC for three years. On August 8, 1984, the INS Associate Commissioner for Examinations affirmed the Regional Commissioner’s decision on the ground that TELE-SEC “had not heard from the beneficiary since 1981, was unaware that its counsel was pursuing the matter, and [stated] that it did not wish to pursue the matter.”
¶12The district court, granting the INS’s motion for summary judgment, stated in part:
8 C.F.R. § 204.4(b)5 allows revocation of visa [sic] that have been approved should the intention of the prospective employer change. Obviously, in applying the Paco case,6 here the intentions of the employer have changed, which is TELE-SEC, if they had any intention in the beginning, because they say back [on] July 30, 1984, TELE-SEC states *358plaintiff hasn’t been heard from since 1981.
On that basis, it seems to me that following 8 C.F.R. § 204.4(b), it seems logical that an application that’s been denied would be negated in the appeal process. So I think there’s no abuse of discretion on the part of the I.N.S. at this time in denying his application. I’m sympathetic, but my review of this case is narrow. On that basis, I’m going to grant the motion for summary judgment, [footnotes added]
¶13On appeal, Taneja maintains that the district court erred in reviewing the INS decisions according to an abuse of discretion standard and in considering TELE-SEC’s letter to the INS in its decision, that the INS District Director improperly denied TELE-SEC’s petition, and that the Regional Commissioner dismissed the appeal and denied the motion to reopen on improper grounds. Taneja also argues that the government’s conduct in processing the application estops it from relying upon TELE-SEC’s withdrawal of its sponsorship as grounds for denying the application.7
¶14We agree with the district court that TELE-SEC’s decision to withdraw its sponsorship of the visa application is sufficient to sustain the denial of a sixth preference visa to Taneja. 8 C.F.R. § 204.4(b). In view of our decision on this point, it is not necessary to decide whether the INS erred in its initial decision denying the petition and its rejection of Taneja’s motion to reopen the case. Finally, even accepting that the INS acted carelessly as Taneja alleges, we conclude that its actions do not reach the level of affirmative misconduct necessary to estop it from asserting TELE-SEC’s changed intentions as a basis for denying the application.
¶15In view of the above, the decision of the district court is affirmed.
¶16AFFIRMED.