dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

ideaIifyiDgdata deletedto
pI8WDt clearlyunwarran1ed..
1,.-' fIfperI8MI pftwcy
PUBLICCOpy
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: WAC 03 244 54647 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 20 2007
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
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.
~""J.--I r: ~
~ Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
WAC 03 244 54647
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition by decision dated June 10,
2004. The matter was then appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). By decision dated June 29,
2006, the AAO withdrew the director's decision and remanded the matter to the director for entry of a new
decision, which would address the issue of whether the beneficiary is qualified to serve in the pertinent specialty
occupation in accordance with the relevant regulations on establishing a beneficiary as qualified for an H-IB visa.
In response to the AAO's decision to remand, the director requested additional evidence from the petitioner. The
petitioner did not respond to the director's request. The director then denied the Form 1-129petition and certified
the matter to the AAO for review.
The record reflects that the petitioner was properly served with a notice of the director's certification to the AAO
of her decision to deny the petition, and that the notice apprised the petitioner of its option to submit matters in
response to the certification within 30 days. As no such matters have been received by the AAO, the record is
complete and ready for adjudication .
The director based her certified decision on each of two independent grounds: (l) abandonment of the petition,
based on the petitioner's failure to respond to the request for evidence , in accordance with the regulation at
8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(l3); and (2) failure of the evidence of record to establish that the beneficiary satisfies the
regulatory requirements for qualification to serve in the pertinent specialty occupation.
The AAO concurs with the director's decision. By its failure to reply to the director's request for evidence, the
petitioner has abandoned the petition. This fact compels denial of the petition, in accordance with 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(13). Further, the findings articulated in the director's decision on the beneficiary qualification
issue are supported by the evidence of record, and the director 's decision to deny the petition on the
beneficiary qualification issue comports with the relevant regulations.
The director's decision will be affirmed. The petition will be denied.
ORDER: The director's April 2, 2007 decisionis affmned. The petition is denied.