PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2013-09-26 · NSC · SEP262013_03B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date. See in text

What the AAO decided

Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citiz enship and Immigr ation Services Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 Washington , DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · DATE: SEP 2 6 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE · INRE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: · PETITION: 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:

    SELF-REPRESENTED

    INSTRUCTIONS:

    Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.

    Thank you,?

    J ,fi--,fd-

    Ron Rosenberg

    Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov

    NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

    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.

    The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(2) as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability. The director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date. On appeal, the petitioner asks that the petition be approved as the beneficiary's services are necessary and needed by the petitioner. The petitioner admits that it cannot pay the proffered wage of the beneficiary and relies on contributions from its owner to sustain itself, but believes that with the beneficiary's service the entity will in the future be profitable. The petitioner states, "[the] reason for denial, namely that the company cannot pay the salary determined by the [Department of Labor], in itself is correct." Therefore, the petitioner does not dispute the director 's fmding and stipulates that the director's decision is correct.

    As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. In this instance, the petitioner has not, on appeal, identified specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal

    Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial, except to agree that petitioner cannot pay the proffered wage without outside assistance, and has not provided any additional evidence in that regard. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed.

    ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.