Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as 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:
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.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.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,
4/({v.~
Ron Rosenberg
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
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 sales engineer. 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). 1 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 beneficiary does not have the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree to qualify as an advanced degree professional and to meet the required terms of the labor certification.Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent
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.
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. 2
On April 3, 2014, we sent the petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal (NOID) with a copy to counsel of record. The NOID stated that according to EDGE, which is created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officer (AACRAO), the beneficiary's educational credentials are the equivalent of two U.S. bachelor's degrees rather than a foreign equivalent degree that equates to a single U.S. master's degree. We also noted that the petitioner had filed a Form I-140 on behalf of two other workers and that it must establish its ability to pay the proffered wages of these two other beneficiaries in addition to the beneficiary's proffered wage. The NOID allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to submit a response to these issues. 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)(l3)(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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.