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.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
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 a computer consulting services and corporate resources company. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a lead management analyst business. 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 failed to establish the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary from the priority date onwards. 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.
On September 20, 2013, the AAO sent the petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal and request for evidence (NOID/RFE) with a copy to counsel of record. The NOID/RFE specifically requested evidence concerning the beneficiary ' s previous experience with the petitioner constituted "qualifying experience " under the terms of the labor certification. In addition the NOID/RFE requested evidence concerning the petitioner ' s ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary and to the additional workers sponsored by the petitioner. The NOID/RFE allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to submit a response. The AAO informed the petitioner that failure to respond to the NOID/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 NOID/RFE. 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/RFE, 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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.