dismissed EB-2 Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: MAy 2 9 201ft OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
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. 
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) . 
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 1-2908, 
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-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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.