dismissed EB-3 Case: Construction

U.S. Department of ffomeland Sefurity 
20 Mass Aye., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: EAC 02 1 89 53 146 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER ate: NOV 2 9 2"' 
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 OEce in your case. Ail documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
w 
EAC 02 189 53146 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner is a construction company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
construction equipment mechanic. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment 
Certification approved by the Department of Labor OL), accompanied the petition. 
The preference visa petition was filed on May 1 1,2002. 
The director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition on March 2, 2005. The director notified the petitioner 
that the attorney who had represented the petitioner in the preference visa proceedings had pled guilty to one 
count of conspiracy, four counts of money laundering, and one hundred and sixty-four counts of labor and 
immigration fraud. The director concluded that the petition must be denied based on a lack of evidence showing 
that a bona fide job offer from a U.S. employer existed and that the original labor certification be invalidated 
unless the petitioner provided rebuttal evidence. The director requested additional evidence from the petitioner's 
chief executive officer, president, owner, or other responsible officer or employee verifying that the person 
signing the labor certification and immigration documents was authorized to do so, including handwriting 
exemplars from this person, as well as other employment-related documentation. The director afforded the 
petitioner thirty (30) days to respond to the notice of intent to deny with additional evidence and argument. 
On July 5, 2005, the director denied the petition, noting that it had not received any communication from the 
petitioner in response to the director's notice of intent to deny the petition. On August 8,2005, the petitioner filed 
an appeal from the director's July 5,2005, decision to deny the petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(15) provides that: 
A denial due to abandonment may not be appealed but an applicant or petitioner may 
file a motion to reopen under $ 103.5. Withdrawal or denial due to abandonment does 
not preclude the filing of a new application or petition with a new fee. However, the 
priority or processing date of a withdrawn or abandoned application or petition may not 
be applied to a later application [or] petition. Withdrawal or denial due to abandonment 
shall not itself affect the new proceeding; but the facts and circumstances surrounding 
the prior application or petition shall otherwise be material to the new application or 
petition. (Emphasis added.) 
In this matter, the director's decision to deny the petition was based on the lack of response from the petitioner. As 
such the denial was based on the abandonment of the petition. As set forth above, a denial due to abandonment may 
not be appealed. Therefore such an appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.