I Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced I
PETITION:
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability P.ursuant 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 in your case. All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that ori&inally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. on Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office
Page 2 .
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa I petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The case will be remanded to the director for review and issuance of a ndw decision.
The petiti~ner is a plastic design and ·parts .supplier. It sLks to employ the beneficiary permanen~y in the United States as a computer graphic designer pursuaftt to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). A~ required by statute, an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, Jpproved by the United States Department of
Labor (DOL), accompanied the petition .
.. 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 evidehce in the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal. 1
P\lrsuan{ to the Form I -140,. Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker,. the director issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on September 1, 2010. The response ~as due on October 4, 2010. As the director did not receive a response, the Form 1-140 was denied oh April27, 2011. .· On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the denial wJ not justified as the response w~ timely submitted and received by the Service Center. Th~ AAO concurs. Relevant FedEx ·delivery documentation indicates that the documents were delivered on .September 30, 2010, prior to the response due date. The case will be remanded to the dkector for review of the entire record and the response to the RFE filed by the petitioner. The dirJctor will issue a new decision based on his revtew.
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn; the petition is remanded to the director for further review and issuance of a new decision, .tvhich, if adverse to the petitioner, is to be certified to the Administrative Appeals Officb for review.