Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 20J(h)(2) of the lmmigratiun 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 in your case. All of the documi:nts related to this maller have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised th;ll any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its deci s ion, or you have additional information that you wish to have considered , you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to rcopcn in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion , with a fcc of $630 . The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.5. Do not tile any nultion directly with the AAO. Please he aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion lu he filed with in 30 days of tht: dt:cision that tht: motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Thank you, dit.bcrg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center (director), denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the director dismissed. The petitioner appealed the director's decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8· C.F.R. § l03.2(b)( 13)(i). The petitioner describes itself as a wholesale and retail merchandise business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a graphic designer. The petitioner requests classification of the beneficiary as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the lmmigratiqn 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 petitioner failed to demonstrate the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date.
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed 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. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.'
On January 29, 2013, the AAO sent the petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss (NQID) the appeal with a copy to then counsel. The NOID stated that the records of the California Secretary of State ' s website indicate that the petitioner's business is dissolved. The NOID allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to submit a response. The AAO informed the petitioner that failure to respond to the NOlO would result in a dismissal of the appeal.
As of the date of this decision, the petitioner has not responded to the AAO's NOlO. 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 NOlO, 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 2Y 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned.