remanded EB-3 Case: Rug Repair

idend&ing data deleted to 
vent clearly unw4immted 
EMsioa ofpenaur @V8CY 
U.S. Department of Elomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional pursuant to 
section 203@)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153@)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based preference visa petition was initially approved by the Acting 
Director (Director), Vermont Service Center. Based on the result of a permanent residence interview at 
the United States Embassy in Damascus, Syria, the director consequently served the petitioner with notice 
of intent to revoke the approval of the petition (NOIR). In a Notice of Revocation (NOR), the director 
ultimately revoked the approval of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140) because the 
record did nort include a response to the NOIR. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be remanded to the director. 
The petitioner is a rug cleaning and repair company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in 
the United States as a rug repairer (oriental rug repairer). As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, 
Application for Alien Employment Certification approved by the Department of Labor (DOL), 
accompanied the petition. The director found that the record did not include a response to the NOIR, and 
thus the grounds of revocation had not been overcome. The director revoked the approval of the petition 
accordingly. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed, timely and makes a specific allegation of error in law 
or fact. The procedural history in this case is documented by the record and incorporated into the 
decision. Further elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. 
As set forth in the director's October 21, 2005 NOR, the single issue in this case is whether or not the 
petitioner has overcome the grounds of revocation in the director's NOIR dated March 4,2005. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(16)(i) states in pertinent part: 
If the decision will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory 
information considered by [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] and of which the 
applicant or petitioner is unaware, helshe shall be advised of ths fact and offered an 
opportunity to rebut the information and present information in his /her own behalf before 
the decision is rendered, . . . 
On appeal counsel asserts that the petitioner did not have the opportunity to submit any evidence to 
overcome the grounds of revocation because it did not receive the NOIR. The record shows that on 
March 4, 2005, the director issued the NOIR and mailed it to the petitioner's counsel at 
I 
and filed the instant appea 
The record also shows that 
it appears possible that the 
petitioner through its counsel did not receive the NOIR dated March 4, 2005. The submission of the 
instant appeal itself indicates that the petitioner does not have the intent to abandon this immigrant 
petition by not responding the director's NOR. If the petitioner had received the NOR, it could have 
submitted its assertions and additional evidence to rebut the grounds of intent to revoke. 
In view of the foregoing, the previous decision of the director will be withdrawn. The petition is 
remanded to the director to provide the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the grounds of revocation by re- 
issuing the NOR. Similarly, the petitioner may provide additional evidence within a reasonable period of 
time to be determined by the director. Upon receipt of all the evidence, the director will review the entire 
record and enter a new decision, which if adverse to the petitioner, shall be certified to the AAO. 
Page 3 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further 
action in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision.