DATE: JUN () 4 2015
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
FILE#:
PETITION RECEIPT#:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO)
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090
Washington, DC 20529-2090
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 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:
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO.
Thank you,
�-(;y
Ron Rosenberg
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i).
The petitioner describes itself as an information technology business. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a senior programmer analyst. 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 petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the proffered wages of the beneficiary and its other sponsored workers or that the beneficiary possessed the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Master's degree in "Engineering, Science, or Math."
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). We consider all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.1
On January 22, 2015, we sent the petitioner a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and Request for Evidence (NOID/RFE) and requested evidence of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wages of its other sponsored workers. On March 9, 2015, we received correspondence from counsel for the petitioner indicating that the beneficiary voluntarily resigned from the petitioner's employ. On April 10, 2015, we sent the petitioner another NOID with a copy to counsel of record to provide an opportunity to submit the documentation requested, indicating that if the petitioner does not intend to proceed with the instant appeal, it may withdraw the petition in response to the NOID. The NOID allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to submit a response. We informed the petitioner that failure to respond to the NOID would result in a dismissal of the appeal.
As of the date of this decision, the petitioner has not responded to our NOID. 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 NOID, the appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i).
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.