nfeld, Immigration Law and Procedure Sec. 3.5(j).  It does not guarantee that a visa will be issued, nor does it grant the alien any right to remain in the United States.   Joseph v. Landon, 679 F.2d 113, 115 (7th Cir.1982);  Amarante v. Rosenberg, 326 F.2d 58, 61 (9th Cir.1964).


15
The INS may revoke an approved visa petition "at any time" when it finds "good and sufficient cause."  Sec.   205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1155;  8 C.F.R. Sec. 205.3.  Despite the burden that Sec. 205 places on the Government, a proceeding to revoke a visa petition, like the petition itself, is a part of the application process and falls under Sec. 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1361.  Thus, once the INS has produced some evidence to show cause for revoking the petition, the alien still bears the ultimate burden of proving eligibility.  The alien's burden is not discharged until the visa is issued.


16
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A), a court may set aside a determination of the INS as arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.  The determination must be made on the administrative record before the Service.   Navarro v. District Director, 574 F.2d 379, 383 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 861, 99 S.Ct. 182, 58 L.Ed.2d 170 (1978).  We have held it an abuse of discretion for the Service to act "if there is no evidence to support the decision or if the decision was based on an improper understanding of the law."   Song Jook Suh v. Rosenberg, 437 F.2d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir.1971), quoted in Joseph v. Landon, 679 F.2d 113, 116 (7th Cir.1982);  see Loza-Bedoya v. INS, 410 F.2d 343, 346 (9th Cir.1969).  The term "no evidence," however, cannot be read literally.   Digilab, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 357 F.Supp. 941, 942 (D.Mass.1973) ("The term 'no evidence' as stated in [Song Jook Suh ] cannot be interpreted to mean 'any' evidence, no matter how little."), remanded on other grounds, 495 F.2d 323 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 840, 95 S.Ct. 70, 42 L.Ed.2d 67 (1974).  It seems clear, then, that the