dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Development

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
Date: JUL 25 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. I)epartment of Homeland Securit~ 
U.S. Cilizen~hir and Immigration SC[\ iL'l'" 
Administrative Appeals Office (AM») 
20 MassachuselL~ Ave .. N.W., MS ::'()'I(I 
Washington, DC 2()529-2()9() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Memher of the ProCessions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ahility Pursuant to Section 203(h)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nalionality Acl, H U.S.c. § 1153(h)(2) 
ON 13EIIAI.F OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find Ihe decision of the Administrative Appeals Officc in your casco All of the documenh 
related 10 Ihis matter have hecn returned to the office that originally decided your casco Please be advised Ih'll 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
II YOII helleve Ihc AAO inappropriately applied Ihc law in reaching ils decision, or you have addilil>ll,iI 
ini"llrm;Ilioll that Yl)U wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen ill 
accllfdance wilh Ihe instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fce of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directl~ with the AAO. Please be aware that H C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to he filed wilhin 
J() day~ or the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
'"'''''''"74 L 
/.-H1LI" 'eff) Rhe" ~ 
ChieL Adminislrative Appcals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texa, 
Service Center. and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner was a software development and consulting company. It sought to employ the 
beneficiary permanently in the United States as a software engineer pursuant to section 203(b)(2) oj 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.s.C § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, a labo) 
certification accompanied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning Oil 
the priority date of the visa petition. The director denied the petition accordingly. 
In a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOlO) dated June 11, 2012, the AAO requested evidence to 
establish that the petitioning business in this matter, Nextgen Software Solution, Inc., was still all 
active business in North Carolina 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 presellt.' 
Specifically. the petitioner was instructed to submit tax returns or audited financial statements for the 
petitioner for 20]() and 2011 and Forms W -2 or 1099 (if any) for the beneficiary for 2010 and 20 I I. 
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 lill denying the petition. See 8 CF.R. § 103.2(b)(14). More than 30 days have passed :lIld 
the petitioller has failed to respond with proof that Nextgen Software Solution, Inc. was an active 
business in North Carolina and that it has the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage. 
Thus. the appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. See also 8 CF.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 novo basis. The AAO's de novo authority is well 
)l'Cllgnized In the federal courts. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2(04).