dismissed EB-2 Case: Professional

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 1 9 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
u.s; Departmelltof . .l.!~m~tii ~!l :security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and bnmigratioil 
Services 
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 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
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. 
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 an advanced degree professional. The director 
determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed the requisite 
advanced degree in order to qualify as an advanced degree professional. 
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. 1 
On October 29, 2013, the AAO sent the petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal 
(NOID) with a copy to counsel of record. The AAO advised the petitioner of the deficiencies of 
the record petinent to whether the beneficiary's credentials satisfied the requirements of an 
advanced degree professional and whether proficiency in the specific skills specified in the labor 
certification had been demonstrated. The AAO also requested additional information regarding 
the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. 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 ofthis 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. § 
1 03.2(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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 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).