dismissed EB-3

dismissed EB-3 Case: Tailoring

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Tailoring

Decision Summary

The motions to reopen and reconsider were denied. The petitioner failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) concerning derogatory information and discrepancies about the beneficiary's qualifying experience. Due to the lack of a timely response, the motions were denied as abandoned.

Criteria Discussed

Ability To Pay Proffered Wage Beneficiary'S Qualifying Experience Failure To Respond To Noid

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
AdministratiH Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 26. 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of dry cleaning and tailoring services. seeks to employ the Beneficiary as 
an alteration tailor. It requests her classification as a skilled worker under the third-preference. 
immigrant category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(h)(3)(A)(i). 8 U.S.C. 
~ I I 53(h )(3 )(A)(i ). This employment-based, ยทยทEB-r 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate its required ability to pay the proffered wage. On appeal. we af1inned the Dircctorยทs 
decision. S'ee Maller ofM-C-. ][) #78179 (AAO Mar. 30. 20 17). We also found that the record did 
not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum experience required for the offered 
position or the requested classi tication. !d. 
The matter is now before us on the Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner 
submits additional evidence and asserts both its ability to pay the proffered wage and the 
Beneficiary's possession of the requisite experience. 
During the course of adjudication. we mailed a notice of intent to deny (NOID) to the Petitioner. 
with a copy to counsel. The NOID informed the Petitiom.:r of derogatory information and 
discrepancies of record regarding the Beneficiary's claimed. qualifying experience. The NOID. sent 
January II, 2018, warned the Petitioner that, absent a response within 33 days of the notice's 
mailing. we may deny the motions. ,)'ee 8 C.F.R. ~~ 103.2(b)(8)(iv). 103.8(b) (allowing up to 30 
days to respond to a NOID and adding three days if the notice was served by regular mail). To date. 
more than 40 days after we mailed the NOID. we have not received a response. 
If a petitioner does not timely respond to a NOID. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may summarily deny the petition. 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(h)(l3)(i). USCIS may also deny a 
petition if a petitioner withholds requested evidence. preventing a material line of inquiry. X C.F.R. 
~ 103.2(b)(l4). 
The Petitioner did not timely respond to the NOID. Under 8 C.F.R. ~ I 03.2(b )(13 )(i ). we will 
therefore deny the motions as abandoned. 
;\4alll:r of M-( '_ 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter o(i'vf-C-.lD# 667757 (AAO Feb. 26. 2018) 
2 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.