-6-
2002. Petitioner was provided a 30-day response period, at the
expiration of which its application would be administratively
closed and a new user fee would be charged to resume processing.
Petitioner denies that it received the disputed letter.
On August 31, 2004, petitioner sent a letter of protest to
respondent (the August 31, 2004, letter) concerning the status of
its application and requesting Appeals Office consideration. In
the August 31, 2004, letter, petitioner supplied additional
information corresponding in substance to, and following the
sequence and arrangement of, the enumerated inadequacies detailed
in the disputed letter. The August 31, 2004, letter does not
expressly reference the disputed letter, nor does it contain
identical numbering, but its particular content and organization
reflect the fact that it was intended as a response to the
disputed letter. For example, item 21 of the disputed letter
requires that petitioner provide a copy of a presentation
entitled: “Alleviating Recidivism Among Prisoners: China and
Texas.” In comparison, item 19 of the August 31, 2004, letter
states: “the Presentation is called: ‘Alleviating Recidivism
among Prisoners’, where China as well as Texas Exploits its
Prisoner’s Labor. (The question was presented wrong in the
request for additional information.)”
Following correspondence from petitioner dated October 4,
2004, regarding the status of its preceding administrative
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011