remanded EB-3 Case: Household Worker

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of pwnal privacy 
PUBLJC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: 
 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 6 2@)fj 
SRC 03 067 5 1879 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Other, Unskilled Worker Pursuant to 
tj 203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 
office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be rejected. The petition is being returned to 
the director. 
The petitioner is a household. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
household worker. As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by a Form ETA 750, Application for 
Alien Employment Certification, approved by the U. S. Department of Labor. The director denied the 
petition on June 18, 2004 for abandonment. An appeal was sent in on July 15, 2004. There were two date 
stamps on the Form I-290B. The appeal was considered late, and reviewed as a motion to reopen/reconsider 
the denial. On February 7,2005, the director reopened the petition and sent it to the AAO. 
Request for additional evidence were issued in this matter on September 16, 2003, and February 18, 2004. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(13), the petitioner was obliged to respond to those requests. That section states 
that, in the event that a petitioner does not respond to such a notice, the petition shall be considered abandoned 
and shall be denied. The director found that the petitioner had not responded and denied the petition. 
A denial for abandonment cannot be appealed under the regulation (8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(13). Since counsel is 
asserting that the request for evidence went to the wrong party, the record is being returned to the director to 
be treated as a motion and adjudicated as such. 
The AAO determines that the director should reexamine the instant petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.