dismissed EB-3 Case: Industrial Machinery Repair

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
IN RE: 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington. DC 20529 
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. 5 1153(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 offtce. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner is a swimwear manufacturer and seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United 
States as a sewing machine repairer ("Industrial Sewing Machines Mechanic") as a skilled worker pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). On 
April 1, 2005, the director denied the petition based on his determination that the petitioner had abandoned 
the petition by failing to submit the documentation in response to the Service Center's issued request for 
additional evidence ("RFE). 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that it did not receive the RFE. Further, the petitioner provided that its business 
is located in a facility with other businesses, and when the regular assigned U.S. Post Ofice worker is not 
working, the petitioner's mail is sometimes delivered to the other businesses. The petitioner was unable to 
provide evidence that this was definitively the case. The RFE in the record of proceeding reflects the petitioner's 
address listed on the filed Form 1-140. The petitioner requests that the Service Center reconsider its decision and 
to allow the petitioner to continue processing the instant petition. 
Attached to the Service Center decision, the director provided the petitioner information related to Motions to 
Reopen based on an Abandonment denial. The information first provides that a denial due to abandonment may 
not be appealed, but an applicant or petitioner may file a motion to reopen under 5 103.5(a)(2). The director 
further sets forth the criteria that the petitioner would need to establish to successfully reopen the petition. 
As a denial due to abandonment may not be appealed, this office has no jurisdiction over the instant appeal. 
Rather, as 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) provides, denials due to abandonment may be challenged in a motion to reopen 
before the office that rendered the decision based on limited arguments. Alternatively, the petitioner may file a 
new application or petition with fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.