dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JAN 0 8 2015 
IN RE: Pcti\ ioncr: 
Benel�ciary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Dcp>trtmcnt of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citiz�nship and Immigration Services 
Administrative i\pp�<lis Office (t\i\0) 
20 \lassaclniS<:tb .·\'"<: .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-20')0 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Imn1.igration 
Services 
FILE: 
PE"TTflON: 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 ln11nigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PCflTIONER.: 
lNSTRUC.f!ONS: 
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 A/\0 incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, y ou may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any rnotion must be nice! on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-29013) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Plc�lSC review the Fom1 I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.guv/fonns for· the latest information on fcc, !iling location, and other requirements. 
Seu also 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank yoH, 
/ ( . 
.;{./l .. :-v,. '- !(...,.. 
� I . 
.. 
Ron Roscnbe1·g 
Chief, Adrninistrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.go,· 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center (Director). It is now on appeal before the Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner designs and services video software. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary 
in the United States as a senior solutions architect and to classify him as an advanced degree 
professional pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
On June 5, 2014, the Director denied the petition on the ground that the beneficiary did not have a 
U.S. master's degree or a foreign equivalent degree, as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) and 
required under the terms of the labor certification to qualify for the job offfered. The petitioner filed 
a timely appeal. 
On November 13, 2014, we issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and Request for Evidence 
(NOIDIRFE). While the record showed the beneficiary to have a "Diploma in Electrical & 
Computer Engineering" from a Greek university, we noted that this educational credential appeared 
to be comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. Accordingly, we requested input from 
the petitioner as to how the beneficiary met the educational requirement of the labor certification. 
We also requested additional documentation to establish the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered 
wage of the job offered from the priority date of the instant petition (January 22, 2013) up to the 
present, as well as the proffered wages of all other beneficiaries for whom I-140 petitions have been 
filed by the petitioner. Finally, we noted conflicting information from the petitioner as to whether or 
not the job offered is a newly created position, and requested an explanation for this inconsistency. 
The petitioner was afforded 30 days to respond to the NOIDIRFE. 
The petitioner did not respond to the NOID/RFE within the 30-day period allowed, or at any time up 
to the date of this decision. If a petitioner fails to respond to a request for evidence or a notice of 
intent to deny by the required date, the petition may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied 
base d on the record, or denied for both reasons. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i). 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. § 1 03.2(b)(l4). 
Since the petitioner has not responded to the NOib!RFE of November 13, 2014, the petition is 
deniable under the regulatory provisions cited above. Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.