dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Development

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac) 
PTJRUCCOPY 
V.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citi/,enship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .• MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
APR 18 2011 LIN 07 11852857 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § I I 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)( I lei) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen . 
. ~ 
rry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.go\, 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a software development and consulting firm. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as a senior systems analyst pursuant to sections 203(b)(2) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, a labor 
certification accompanied the petition. 
Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary satisfied the minimum level of education stated on the labor certification. The director 
determined that the beneficiary's academic credentials could not be accepted as that which would 
qualify her as an advanced degree professional. The AAO issued a request for evidence on February 
9, 2011 concerning the actual minimum educational requirements of the proffered position, as well as 
documentation of the beneficiary's experience and the petitioner's continuing financial ability to pay the 
proffered wage in view of the multiple petitions filed by the petitioner. 1 The AAO explained that the 
evidence in the record of proceeding as currently constituted did not support a clear determination of 
what the actual minimum requirements were as expressed on the labor certification. 
In the RFE, the AAO specifically alerted the petitioner that failure to respond to the RFE would result in 
dismissal since the AAO could not substantively adjudicate the appeal without the information 
requested. 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). 
Because the petitioner failed to respond to the RFE, the AAO is dismissing the appeal. 
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 
recognized by the federal courts. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004).