dismissed EB-3 Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 12, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, which describes itself as a marketing and software solutions business, seeks to employ 
the Beneficiary as a senior software engineer. On the Form I-140, the Petitioner marked box "e" at Part 
2, indicating that it seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a professional pursuant to section 
203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). The 
Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be summarily dismissed as abandoned. 
Upon reviewing the petition, we identified numerous shortcomings in the petition and issued a notice 
of intent to dismiss (NOID) on November 27, 2015. Our NOID detailed the grounds of ineligibility 
and requested evidence to overcome noted deficiencies, including the following: 
• We advised that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary qualified as a 
professional and offered the Petitioner an opportunity to submit evidence to overcome the 
deficiencies in the evidence submitted; 
• We advised that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary possessed the 
educational credentials required by the labor certification and offered the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit evidence to overcome the deficiencies in the evidence submitted; 
• We advised that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary satisfied the 
employment experience requirements of the labor certification and offered the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit evidence to overcome the deficiencies in the evidence submitted; 
• We advised that the Petitioner had not established that it is the legal successor in interest to 
the company that filed the labor certification and provided the Petitioner with an opportunity 
to submit evidence to clarify its legal status; 
• We advised that the Petitioner had not established its ability to pay the proffered wage and 
offered the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional documentation in support of the 
petition; and, 
• We questioned whether the Petitioner intended to employ the Beneficiary in the offered 
position pursuant to the terms of the labor certification and requested additional evidence in 
order to establish its intent. 
In our NOID we specifically alerted the Petitioner that failure to respond to the NOID would result 
m dismissal since we could not substantively adjudicate the appeal without the information 
Matter of C- G-
requested. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). As of the date of this decision, the 
Petitioner has not responded to our NOID. Because the Petitioner did not respond to the NOID, we 
are summarily dismissing the appeal as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i). 
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 summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13). 
Cite as Matter ofC-G-, ID# 14330 (AAO Jan. 12, 2016) 
2