dismissed EB-3 Case: Tailoring

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-E-. INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 23. 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OfFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140.1MMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a provider of dry cleaning and alteration services. sought to employ the Beneficiary 
as an alteration tailor. It requested his classification as a skilled worker under the third-preference. 
immigrant category. 51ee Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i). 
8 U.S.C. ~ 1153(b )(3 )(A)(i). This employment-based, "EB-3" category allows a U.S. business to 
sponsor a foreign national with at least two years of training or experience for lawful permanent 
resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish its required ability to pay the proffered wage. or the Beneficiary's 
possession of the minimum experience required for the offered position. We dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal. finding the petition unapprovable after the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 
revoked the accompanying certification. 
The matter is now before us on the Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider. The DOL has 
notified us of its rcissuance of the certilication. Another company states that it acquired the 
Petitioner's business and seeks to continue the Beneficiary's sponsorship. See Maller of' Dial Auto 
Repair Shop. Inc.. 19 I&N Dec. 481 (Comm ·r 1986) (explaining that a business other than an 
employer listed on a labor certification may use the certificate tor immigration purposes if it 
establishes itself as the employer"s successor in interest). 
On October 31. 2017. we mailed the purported successor a notice of intent to deny (NOID). with a 
copy to counsel of record. The NOID notified the company that the record did not establish its 
claimed successorship of the Petitioner. or the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience for the 
offered position. The NOlO warned the company that \Ve may deny the motions if we did not 
receive a response within 33 days of the notice's mailing. See 8 C.F.R. ~§ 103.2(b)(8)(iv). 103.S(b) 
(allowing a maximum of30 days in which to respond to a NOID and adding three days if the notice 
was served by regular mail). 
If a party does not timely respond to a NOlO, we may summarily deny a bene tit request. 8 C. F. R. 
§ I 03 .2(b )( 13 )(i ). We may also deny a petition if a party does not submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
Matter ofS-E-. Inc. 
To date, more than I 00 days after we mailed the NOTD, we have not received a response from the 
Petitioner's purported successor. Under 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(l3)(i). we will therefore den) the 
motions as abandoned. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Maller ofS-E-. Inc.. ID# 082699 (AAO Feb. 23. 2018) 
2