sustained EB-2 Case: Speech Recognition Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 1 0 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
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 
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. This is a non-precedent 
decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non­
precedent decisions. 
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. 
Thank you, 
~-{ /.v ~~Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center 
(the director), and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's 
decision will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. The petition will be approved. 
The petitioner is a research, development of speech recognition technology/products firm. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as senior software engineer I pursuant to 
section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).1 As required 
by statute, the petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent 
Employment Certification (labor certification), certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 
The director's decision concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish its ability to pay the 
proffered wage. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). The petitioner must demonstrate the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning 
on the priority date, which is the date the ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification, was accepted for processing by any office within the employment system of the DOL. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). The ETA Form 9089 was filed on May 23,2013. 
Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to a Request 
for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that it has the ability 
to pay the proffered wage as of the priority date. Thus, the petitioner has overcome the ground for 
denial of the petition in the director's decision. The director's decision will be withdrawn. 
Accordingly, the petition is approved under section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 
As always in visa petition proceedings, the burden of proof rests entirely with the petitioner. See 
section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The 
petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The director's decision dated February 21, 2014 is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained. 
The petition is approved. 
1 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act 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.