dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleady unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
u.s. Department of Homeland 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 Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
MAR 2 8 2012 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 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. § 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 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. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
\\\D 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 an advanced software development and consulting company. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 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 beneficiary does not have a 
U.S. master's degree or foreign equivalent degree as required by the terms of the labor certification. 
The director denied the petition accordingly. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) dated January 3, 2012, the AAO requested evidence to establish 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 present. 1 Specifically, the petitioner was instructed to 
submit Forms W-2 or 1099 (if any) for the beneficiary for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, and 
tax returns or audited financial statements for the petitioner for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. This 
office also requested additional information to establish that the beneficiary possessed the required 
education for the offered position as set forth in the labor certification. 
This office allowed the petitioner 45 days in which to respond to the RFE. In the RFE, the AAO 
specifically alerted the petitioner that failure to respond to the RFE 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 45 days have passed and 
the petitioner has failed to respond with proof that it has the ability to pay the beneficiary the 
proffered wage and that the beneficiary possessed the required education for the offered position. 
Thus, the appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. Finally, the AAO requested evidence pertaining to 
simultaneously pending immigrant and non-immigrant petitions for other beneficiaries. 
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).