Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.
Thank you,
~((c./
Ron Rosenberg
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www. uscis.gov
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center (director), denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The matter is now before the AAO on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i).
The petitioner states that it is an interior design firm. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a project designer. The petitioner requests classification of the beneficiary as an advanced degree professional pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The petition is accompanied by a labor certification approved by the U.S. Department of Labor.
The director's decision denying the petition concluded that the beneficiary failed to meet the qualifications of the classification sought. The matter is now before the AAO on appeal. 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.
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence irt the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.
On January 31, 2014, the AAO sent the petitioner a Request for Evidence (RFE) with a copy to counsel of record. The AAO discussed some of the discrepant information contained within the record of proceedings relevant to the beneficiary ' s employment experience and requested further evidence of the beneficiary's minimum experience required by the terms of the labor certification. The AAO also instructed the petitioner to provide additional documentation of its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage. The RFE allowed the petitioner 45 days in which to submit a response. The AAO informed the petitioner that failure to respond to the RFE may result in a dismissal of the appeal.
As of the date of this decision, the petitioner has not responded to the AAO ' s RFE. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). Since the petitioner failed to respond to the RFE, the appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i).
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned.