dismissed EB-2 Case: Computer Software Development

(b)(6)
DATE: OCT 2 9 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE : Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
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 J-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 . 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
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 is a "Computer Software Development/Consulting" company. It seeks to permanently 
employ the beneficiary in the United States as a "Senior Computer Software 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 petitioner had not established its 
continuing ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage from the priority date onward. 
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. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly 
submitted upon appeal. 2 
On August 29, 2013, the AAO sent the petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal (NOID) and 
request for evidence with a copy to counsel of record. The NOID requested evidence regarding the 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wages of the instant beneficiary and the other beneficiaries 
for whom it had filed immigrant petitions. The NOID allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to 
submit a response. The AAO 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 the AAO's 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)(13)(i). 
1 Section 203(b )(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the professions 
holding advanced degrees, whose services are sought by an employer in the United States. 
2 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, 
which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). The record in the instant case 
provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents newly submitted on appeal. 
See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page 3 
In visa petition proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.