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:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 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 decision, or you have additional information that you wish to have considered , you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Thank you,
Ron Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center (director), denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(13)(i).
The petitioner filed the above-referenced Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The petitioner seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a veterinarian pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). In pertinent part, section 203(b )(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are sought by an employer in the United States.
As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by an Form ETA 9089, Application for Pernament Employment Certification, certified by by the United States Department of Labor (DOL). The director's denial decision concludes that the petitioner did not demonstrate the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage from the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence.
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. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.1
On April 11, 2013, the AAO sent the petitioner a request for evidence (RFE). The RFE requested that the petitioner submit the required evidence of its ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. The request for evidence allowed the petitioner 45 days in which to submit a response. The AAO informed the petitioner that failure to respond to the RFE would 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.P.R. § 103.2(b )(14). In addition , if all required initial evidence is not submitted with the application or petition, or does not demonstrate eligibility, USCIS, in its discretion, may deny the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(ii). The petitioner 's evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage is initial evidence required by regulation . 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) ("[a]ny petition The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). The record in the instant case provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents newly submitted on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). p. 3 filed by or for an employment-based immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be accompanied by evidence that the prospective United States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage"). Since the petitioner failed to respond to the AAO 's request for evidence, the petitioner has failed to establish that it has the ability to pay the proffered wage. The appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.P.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.