dismissed EB-2 Case: Education

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
'PUBLIC COpy 
Date: jUL III l012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
I3cncficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U S. Citizenship and Imll1igratioll '-;cn'icc" 
Adminis[rative Appcab Office (/\/\0) 
20 M;lssachuscllS /\\'e., N,W" MS 2()()() 
Washington. DC 2()52lJ-201JO 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Mcmhcr or the Prof(;ssions Holding an AdvanCl':u 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(h)(2) of thc Immigration and 
Nationality Act. ~ 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 havc additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider Of a motion to rcopen in 
accordance with thc instructions on Form 1-29013, Noticc of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $0311. Thc 
spccific requirements for filing such a motion can hc found at H C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that ~ C.F.R. § IOJ.S(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or rcopen. 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petitIon was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner was an institution of higher education. It sought to employ the beneficiary permanently 
in the United States as an assistant professor pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), S U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, a labor certification 
accompanied the petition. The director determined that the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum 
level of education stated on the labor certification. The director also found that the petitioner was 
not an accredited institution of higher learning. The director denied the petition accordingly. 
In a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOlO) dated May 17, 2012, the AAO requested evidence to 
establish that the petitioning business in this matter, American Purlinton University, was still an 
active business in California and 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.' 
Specifically, the petitioner was instructed to submit tax returns or audited financial statements for the 
petitioner for 2007, 200S, 2009, 2010, and 2011 and Forms W-2 or 1099 (if any) for the beneficiary 
for 20(J7, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 20ll. 
This office allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to respond to the NOlO. In the NOlO, the AAO 
specifically alerted the petitioner that failure to respond to the NOlO 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 30 days have passed and 
the petitioner has failed to respond with proof that American Purlinton University was an active 
business in California and 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. 
8 U.s.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
I The AAO conducts appellate review on a de /lOVO basis. The i\i\O's de /lOVO authority is well 
recognized by the federal courts. See Soltane v. DO,I, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 20()4).