sustained EB-2 Case: Computer Software

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 1 8 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Service ~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Mass achusetts 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 PETITION ER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
Thank you, 
~/ ~/ ~~sen berg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's decision 
will be withdrawn. We will sustain the appeal and approve the petition. 
The petitioner is a computer software company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in 
the United States as an associate product manager, per section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), which provides immigrant classification to members 
of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are sought by an 
employer in the United States. As required by statute, an ETA Form 9089, Application for Alien 
Employment Certification approved by the Department of Labor (DOL), accompanied the petition. 
Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it 
had the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date of March 28, 2013 onwards. 
The record lacked the petitioner's 2013 federal income tax return, which was unavailable at the time 
that the petition was filed. On appeal and in response to our Request for Evidence (RFE), the 
petitioner submitted its 2013 federal income tax return, which establishes that the petitioner has the 
ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onwards. Thus, the appeal will be sustained 
and the petition will be approved. 
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 met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The petition is approved.