dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
Date: 
APR 0 4 2013 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: · 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration SL'rvicc~ 
Administrative i\pp~:als OITic~: (1\t\< )) 
20 Massachusetts i\vc .. N.W .. MS 211'!11 
Washington. DC :W."i29-201JO 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 lmmigra1ion 
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 I hat 
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 additio-nal 
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 l-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.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, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
-~ 
,, .. 
. 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 is a technical software solution provider. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently 
in the United States as a computer software engineer pursuant to section 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. The director determined that the job offer portion of the Form ETA 750, 
Application for Alien Employment Certification (labor certification), did not require an advanced 
degree professional because only four years of college were required in Box 14. The director denied 
the petition accordingly. 
The· AAO issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on January 29, 2013 concerning the actual 
minimum educational requirements of the offered position. 1 The AAO explained· that it consulted a 
database that did not equate the beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. master's degree. The ·AAO also 
noted that the Form ETA 750 does not require an advanced degree professional for two reasons. First, 
as noted by the director, the Form ETA 750 only requires four years of college, which indicates that a 
U.S. bachelor's degree level of education is the minimum education requirement. Second, the actual 
degree requirement--a Masters of Computer Management--is a foreign degree which is in fact 
comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Therefore, the labor certification requires a U.S. bachelor's 
degree e_quivalent in terms of years of education and type of degree. 
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 the beneficiary possessed the required education 
for the offered position. 
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. 
1 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).