dismissed EB-3 Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 24, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved, but the Director, Texas 
Service Center, later revoked the approval of the petition. The case is now before the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Petitioner describes itself as a Chinese restaurant. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as a Chinese specialty cook pursuant to section 203(b )(3)(ii) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(ii). As required by statute, a labor 
certification accompanied the petition. 
Upon reviewing the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish the ability 
to pay the proffered wage and issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) on August 26, 2014. 
Specifically, the Director noted that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
records revealed that the Petitioner had filed petitions on behalf of numerous beneficiaries. The 
Director noted that the Petitioner would need to demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage for 
each 1-140 beneficiary from the priority date until the Beneficiary obtains permanent residence. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). In response, the Petitioner stated that it had petitioned for 17 different 
beneficiaries. The Petitioner submitted copies of Forms 1-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, 
copies of IRS Forms W-4, and copies of immigrant visas relating to two of the beneficiaries for 
whom it had petitioned. The Director determined that the Petitioner's response to the NOIR did not 
establish its ability to pay the proffered wage and on December 10, 2014, the Director revoked the 
approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again submits documentation relating to two of the beneficiaries for whom 
it had petitioned. We issued a request for evidence (RFE) on June 18, 2015, and again noted that 
USCIS records reveal that the Petitioner has filed employment-based petitions on behalf of twelve 
beneficiaries in addition to the current Beneficiary and had not established the ability to pay the 
proffered wage to each of these beneficiaries from the current Beneficiary's December 31, 2002, 
priority date onward. We identified each of these beneficiaries by name and receipt number and 
notified the Petitioner that in order to establish the ability to pay the wage proffered to the current 
Beneficiary, it was necessary for the Petitioner to provide information regarding the wage proffered 
to each beneficiary, each beneficiary's priority date, and information about whether any beneficiary 
had adjusted to lawful permanent residence. 
In addition, our RFE noted that it appeared that the Petitioner was related to other businesses with 
additional wage obligations to additional beneficiaries. We requested that the Petitioner establish the 
business relationship, if any, between itself and these other businesses. Finally, our RFE also 
identified that the documentation related to the Beneficiary's prior experience was deficient and 
there were inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying work experience, and 
provided the Petitioner the opportunity to explain these discrepancies. 
We specifically alerted the Petitioner that failure to respond to the RFE would result in dismissal of 
the appeal, since we could not substantively adjudicate the appeal without the information requested. 
The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
As of the date of this decision, the Petitioner has not responded to our RFE. Because the Petitioner 
failed to respond to the RFE, we are summarily dismissing the appeal as abandoned pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the Petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13). 
Cite as Matter of L-, Inc., ID# 11062 (AAO Sept. 24, 20 15) 
2