dismissed H-1B Case: Art

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service� 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JAN 0 8 2015 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. 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. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
-��u/:r� r Ron Rosenberg I / 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition 
will be summarily denied as abandoned. 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as an art gallery. In order to employ 
the beneficiary in what it designates as an assistant curator position, the petitioner seeks to classify 
the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker m a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a) (15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the basis of her determination that the petitioner had failed to 
demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Counsel for the petitioner filed a timely appeal with our office, contending that the director's 
findings were erroneous. 
During a preliminary review of the record, we discovered an apparent discrepancy that had not been 
noted by the director in her decision denying the petition. Specifically, while the Form I -129 
identified the petition as one that should be counted against the H-1B numerical limitation 
pertaining to beneficiaries with a U.S. Master's Degree or Higher, it appears that the beneficiary did 
not fall within that category because it appears that her U.S. Master's Degree was not conferred by a 
public or other nonprofit institution. 
Noting this discrepancy, we requested evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary has earned a 
master's or higher degree from a United States institution of higher education (as defined in section 
101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)). We issued this request for 
evidence (RFE) on July 23, 2014, to the addresses that had been provided in the Form G-28. On 
having the RFE returned to us by the post office, we re-mailed the RFE on September 2, 2014, this 
time to the same attorney address as listed in the Form G-28, but to the location for the petitioner to 
which we are addressing this notice. We retrieved that address from the Internet. 
The days allotted for a response to the RFE have passed, without any response from the petitioner. 
A petition may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both 
reasons if a petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or a notice of intent to 
deny by the required date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(13)(i). In the RFE, we specifically alerted the 
petitioner that failure to respond to the RFE would result in dismissal since we could not substantively 
adjudicate the appeal without the information 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 ). 
Because the petitioner has not responded to the RFE, we are dismissing the appeal and summarily 
denying the petition as abandoned. The remaining issues in this proceeding are thereby moot. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is summarily denied as abandoned.