PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedEB-2 · Appeal

Software engineer

Computing, AI & data · decided 2016-04-22 · TSC · APR222016_03B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

2015, the Director denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did not establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of the instant Beneficiary. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C .F .R. § I 03 .2(b )( 13 ). See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · MATTER OF S-S-. INC. · APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · DATE: APR. 22.2016 · PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER

    The Petitioner. an IT development and consulting company. seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a software engineer. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree under the second preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a professional with an advanced degree for lawful permanent resident status.

    The Director, Texas Service Center. denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. We will summarily dismiss the appeal.

    The 1-140 petition was filed on July 28. 2014. The petition was accompanied by an ETA Fom1 9089. Application tor Permanent Employment Certification. which was tiled with the Department of Labor (DOL) on November 22,2013. and certified by the DOL (labor certification) on May 29, 2014. On June 29. 2015, the Director denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did not establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of the instant Beneficiary. as well as the proffered wages of all the other beneficiaries of 1-140 petitions it had tiled, from the priority date of the instant petition (November 22, 2013) onward. The Petitioner filed a timely appeal.

    On January 8, 2016. we issued a request for evidence (RFE). We requested additional documentation to establish the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wages of the instant Beneficiary and all of its other I -140 beneficiaries from the priority date of the instant petition up to the present. We also requested evidence showing that the Petitioner would be the Beneficiary's actual employer, and that the Beneficiary had five years of qualifying experience as required on the labor certification. We atTorded the Petitioner 87 days to respond to the RFE.

    The Petitioner did not respond to the RFE within the 87-day period allowed. or at any time up to the date of this decision. If a petitioner fails to respond to a request for evidence by the required date. the petition may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record. or denied for both reasons. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i).

    Matter ofS-S-, Inc.

    Since the Petitioner has not responded to the RFE of January 8, 2016, the petition is deniable under the regulatory provision cited above. Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C .F .R. § I 03 .2(b )( 13 ). Cite as lVfaller l~(S-S- Inc., ID# 15606 (AAO Apr. 22, 2016)