dismissed EB-3 Case: Computer Science

identifying data deleted to 
prevmt clearly unwmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
m mr ,vc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
CC: SRINIVASA R JONNALAGADDA, ESQ 
1 170 BROADWAY STE 601 
NEW YORK, NY 1000 1 
DISCUSSION: The employment based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The petitioner filed a motion 
to reopen the AAO's decision. The petitioner then withdrew the motion. The AAO's previous dismissal will be 
affirmed and the petition will remain denied. 
The petitioner, a software development and computer consulting service, sought to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as a pro&rammer/analyst. As required by statute, the petition was accompanied 
by an individual labor certification approved by the Department of Labor. 
On January 17, 2003, the director denied the petition. The AAO dismissed counsel's appeal1 on January 13, 
2005. 
On February 16, 2005, the petitioner's presiden- filed a "Notice of Appeal to the Board of 
Immigration Appeals (BIA) fi-om a Decision of an INS Officer" (Form EOIR-29), along with attached documents 
indicating that he was disputing the decision to deny the preference petition based on the employer's inability to 
pay the proffered wage. 
By correspondence dated July 13, 2005 states that the beneficiary is seeking permanent status as a 
dependent of her spouse, and requested that the appeal in the instant matter be withdrawn. 
As the AAO had already dismissed the appeal on January 13,2005, the AAO interprets ebruary 
16, 2005, "notice of appeal" as a motion to reopen this decision and request further review. His subsequent 
correspondence requesting a withdrawal of the appeal will be received as a withdrawal of his motion to 
reopen. 
ORDER: 
 Based on the petitioner's withdrawal of his motion to reopen, the previous decision of the AAO 
to dismiss the appeal is affirmed and the petition remains denied. 
1 
 In the instant matter, the petitioner will be treated as representing itself, as counsel did not file the 
documents submitted afier the AAO's, January 13,2005, decision. A copy of this decision will be provided 
to counsel.