dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 2 5 201
fFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
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 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee 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, 
0'1. /_ }"(' !iA cJf·~vr:.y;;(. {~~ ~~, ~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Offic 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The 
petitioner appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a software development and IT consulting firm. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as senior software engineer, applications. As required by statute, a 
labor certification accompanied the petition. Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined 
that the petitioner failed to establish that it had the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage and 
had failed to establish that the beneficiary met the minimum requirements of the job offered. 
The AAO issued a Request for Evidence on March 11, 2013, requesting that the petitioner provide 
evidence to demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage in 2011 and 2012 by providing copies of 
its income tax returns and Forms W-2 or 1099-MISC for all beneficiaries for those years. The AAO 
also requested that the petitioner submit evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary met the job 
qualifications as stated on the labor certification, and that the beneficiary will be employed at the 
primary worksite located in 
This office allowed the petitioner 12 weeks in which to provide the evidence requested. The notice 
was sent to the petitioner's and to counsel's last known address. To date, there has been no response 
from the petitioner or petitioner's counsel. 
The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition. See 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(14). Because the petitioner failed to respond to the 
RFE and failed to provide the evidence requested, 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.