dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

PlJBLlC COpy 
Date: 
IN RE: 
JUN \ \ 2012 
Petitioner: 
13encficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
L.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Servin: ... 
Adml niSlral ivl' Arpe<l Is Office (I\I\()) 
20 Massachusells I\ve" N.W .. M~ ~()I)i) 
Washington, i)<.' 2US2(}-2{)()O 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Memher of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(h)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1153(b)(2) 
001 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 heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
an) further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in rcaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, yuu may file a motion to reconsider or a motion tu n:upen with 
the field ollice or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at 8 C.F.R. 
~ 103.5. Do not lile any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that K C.F.R. * 103.5(a)(I)(i) 
requlfl':s any molion to he filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
Perry Rhew 
Chid, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.nscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a software development and IT company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as a Sr. 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 petitioner had not 
established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary tbe proffered wage beginning on 
the priority date of the visa petition. The director denied the petition accordingly. 
In a Request for Evidence (RFE) dated February 15,2012, 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. l Specifically, the petitioner was instructed 
to submit Forms W-2 or 1099 (if any) for the beneficiary for 2009, 20lU, and 2011, and tax returns 
or audited financial statements for the petitioner for 2009, 2010, and 2011. 
This office allowed the petitioner 12 weeks 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 12 weeks have passed and 
the petitioner has failed to respond with proof that it has the ability to pay the beneficiary the 
proffered wage. 
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 2'1 I of the Act. 
S U.s.c. § 13fll. 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 Soitane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004).