· PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Memher of the Professions Holding an Advanccll Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(h)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U5.C. § 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALf OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclos~d 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 adllitional informat .ion 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 wi1hin 30 days of the decision that .the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Thank you,
·.GLW·
Ron Ros.cnbcrg
. Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov p. 2 v· . .
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and isnow before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.
The petitioner is a software development and consulting company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary . . . 1 permanently in the l.Jnited States as a senior programmer analyst QA pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. ~ 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, , a labor certification accompanied the petitiOIJ. The director determined that the petitioner had not established ·that it had the continuing ability to pay · the beneficiary the proffered wage ·beginning on the priority date of the visa petition. The director denied th~ petition according! y.
In a request for evidence (RFE) dated December 20, 2012, the. AAO requested evidence to establish that the petitioner has the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition and continuing up to the present. 1 Specifically, the petitioner was instructed to submit tax returns or audited financial statements for the petitioner for 2010 and 2011 and Forms W-2 or 1099 (if any) for the beneficiary for 2010, 2011, and 2012.
This office allowed the · petitioner 60 da:ys in which to respond to the RFE. In the RFE, the AAO specifically alerted the petitioner that failure to respond to the RFE could result in dismissal of the appeal. 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). More than 60 days have passed and the petitioner has failed to respond with proof that it has the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage.
Thus, the _appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. See also 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(13).
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely · with the petitioner. ·Section 291 of the Act, 8U.S.C. ~ 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . .