dismissed EB-3 Case: Culinary

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF S-E- DATE: NOV. 28, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Japanese restaurant, seeks to employ the Beneficiary permanently in the United States 
as a Japanese cook. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third of 
the employment-based immigrant visa preferences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This immigrant classification allows a U.S. 
employer to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that 
requires at least two years of training or experience . 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, initially approved the petition but ultimately revoked the 
approval of the petition on November 24, 2014, finding that the Petitioner had not responded to its 
notice oflntent to Revoke (NOIR). The Petitioner appealed the Director ' s decision to this office and 
on March 20, 2015, we withdrew the Director ' s decision , finding that the NOIR had 
not been 
properly mailed to the Petitioner or its legal representative , and remanded the matter for further 
consideration. On July 13, 2015, the Director again revoked the approval of the petition after 
reissuing the NOIR, finding that the Petitioner had not provided the requested evidence of its 
employment of the Beneficiary. 
The matter is again before us on appeal. Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we will 
summarily dismiss the appeal as abandoned. 
On August 16, 2016, having reviewed the evidence of record, we issued a notice of intent to dismiss 
and request for evidence to the Petitioner (NOID/RFE). The NOID/RFE informed the Petitioner that 
we had identified evidentiary deficiencies that indicated the visa petition might have been approved 
in error on the date that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
initially considered it. 
Specifically, we noted that the Petitioner, a sole proprietorship, had submitted inconsistent evidence 
regarding its owner ' s monthly expenses in 2007 and 2008, and 
asked it to submit evidence to resolve 
the discrepancies . We additionally requested the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1040, U.S. 
Individual Income Tax Return, filed by the Petitioner's owner for 2009, and documentary evidence 
of her 2009 monthly household expenses. 
The NOID/RFE also notified the Petitioner that we had found California 
records to indicate that it had been suspended at some point between July 31 , 2013, and September 
30, 2013, and that, as a result, it was unclear whether the job opportunity reflected on the labor 
(b)(6)
Matter ojS-E-
' 
certification could be considered a bona .fide job offer. Accordingly, we asked the Petitioner for 
evidence establishing that the offered position had been a realistic job opportunity from the visa 
petition's August 29, 2007, priority date onward. We also requested proof that the Petitioner 
remained in operation and an explanation of the suspension reflected in records. 
Finally, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i) , the NOID/RFE advised the Petitioner that the 
where the Beneficiary claimed to have 
worked as a Japanese cook ·from January 1, 2003, to January 31 , 2006, had no record of his 
employment. The Petitioner was, therefore, asked to submit documentary evidence of the 
Beneficiary's qualifying employment, as well as a letter identifying his specific duties during the 
period of his employment with the as required by 
8 C.F.R. §204.5(g)(1). 
The NOID/RFE gave the Petitioner 87 days in which to submit its response to the above 
information, and informed the Petitioner that the appeal may be dismissed if no response was 
received. 
As of the date of this decision, we have not received a response to the NOID/RFE. Where a 
petitioner does not respond to a request for evidence or a notice of intent to deny, a petition may be 
summarily denied as abandoned. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l3)(i). As the Petitioner in this matter has not 
responded to the NOID/RFE, we will summarily dismiss the appeal as abandoned, and the Director's 
decision revoking the petition's approval will remain undisturbed. 
ORDER: · The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(l3). 
Cite as Matter ofS-E-, ID# 82671 (AAO Nov. 28, 2016) 
2