dismissed EB-3 Case: Food Service Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 10, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRATION PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a station and convenience store, seeks to employ the Beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as a Food Service Manager for Gas Station under classification as a skilled worker. See 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition and dismissed a 
subsequent motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The Director's decision denying the petition concluded that the Petitioner had not established a 
continuing ability to pay the proffered wage pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
The Director reaffirmed his decision in response to the Petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed and makes a specific allegation of error in law or 
fact. We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). We consider all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted 
upon appeal. 1 
On December 11, 2015, we sent the Petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal (NOID), 
informing it that a review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) Validation 
Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE) system indicated that it might no longer be in business 
and that we required evidence of its continued existence, operation, and good standing, and that a 
bona fide job offer to employ the Beneficiary continued to exist. The NOID also notified the 
Petitioner that additional evidence was needed to establish the Beneficiary's qualifications for the 
offered position. The NOID allowed the Petitioner 33 days in which to submit a response. We 
informed the Petitioner that, if it did not respond to the NOID, we might dismiss the appeal. 
As of the date of this decision, the Petitioner has not responded to the NOID. Not submitting 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry is grounds for denying the petition. 
1 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form 1-2908, which are 
incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). The record in the instant case provides no reason to preclude 
consideration of any of the documents newly submitted on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
Matter of A-, Inc. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). Since the Petitioner did not respond to the NOID, the appeal will be 
summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(13). 
Cite as Matter of A-, Inc., ID# 14941 (AAO Feb. 10, 2016) 
2