dismissed EB-3 Case: Automobile Repair

idenwing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of pcnoaal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
Date: a3 2 0 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
~'obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Center, and is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a gas station and automobile repair firm. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as an automobile mechanic. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, Application for Alien 
Employment Certification approved by the Department of Labor (DOL), accompanied the petition. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not estab!ished.the beneficiary's qualifying work experience 
pursuant to the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(1)(3) and issued a notice of intent to deny the petition on July 29, 
2004. The director advised the petitioner, through former counsel,' that the letter submitted in support of the 
beneficiary's requisite two years of experience in the certified position, purportedly from a prior employer, 
contained an unknown signature and failed to describe the beneficiary's specific duties. She advised the 
petitioner that a final decision on the case would not be made $or thirty (30) days and that the petitioner could 
submit evidence to overcome these deficiencies. The director also advised the petitioner that its submission must 
include the original employment verification letter and a description of the beneficiary's specific duties during the 
claimed employment. 
On March 21, 2005, the director infowed counsel that as no evidence had been received in response to the notice 
of intent to deny, the grounds for the intended denial of the petition had not been overcome. The director denied 
the petition. 
 . 
Counsel filed a timely appeal and submitted a letter from the beneficiary's previous emplbyer. The MO will not 
consider such evidence and finds that the directorls grounds for denying the petition were appropriate. As in the 
present matter, where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the MO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. 
See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of ~bai~bena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the 
petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted the document(s) in 
response to the director's intent to deny the petition on July 29, 2004. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not 
and does not consider the sufficiency of this evidence provided for the first time on appeal. Since the petitioner 
has made no other argument on appeal, this appeal will be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
I 
 The appeal was filed on April 19, 2005. As the petitioner's counsel was subsequently expelled (December 
2,2005) from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department 
of Homeland Security, the petitioner will herein be treated as representing itself. A copy of this decision will 
be furnished to former counsel.