Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) ··
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUctiONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case~ This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy througb non~precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to yout case or if you seek to preseiJ.t new facts for consideration, you rilliY file a lllOtion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Fonil I-290B) . within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at b.ttp://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest inforiilation on fee, filing location, and other requirements. Se.e also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly witb. the AAO.
Thank you,
VlaciwVUJt:
Ron Rosenberg
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office
W\Vl\'.u~cis.gov
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center (director), revoked approval of the employment-b~sed iiiunigrant visa petition. The petitioner appealed the deCision to the Administrative Appeals Office {AAO). The appeal will be summarily dismissed . as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2{b)(13)(i).
The petitioner describes itself as a business providing information technology services and consulting. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a senior software engineer. The petitioner requests classification of the beneficiary as a member of the professions holding an advaneed degree pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
The petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application fo.r Permanent Ernployment Certification, approved by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The priority date of the petition, the date. DOL accepted the ETA Form 9089 for processing, is May 11, 2011. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(d). .
The director revoked the approval of the petition after concluding that the record did not establish that the benericiary was qualified for the offered position and that the labor certification was gained through fra11d or willful misrepresentation of a material fact.
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly S1lbmitted upon appeal.1 .
On June 27, 2013, the AAO sent the petitioner a Notice of Intent .to Dismiss and a Request for Evidence (NOlD/R,FE), with a copy to counsel of record. The NOIDIRFE allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to submit a response. The AAO informed the petitioner that failure to respond to the NOIDIRFE would result in the dismissal of the appeal.
As of the date of this decision, the petitioner has not responded to the NOIP/RFE. Acconlingly, the appeal Will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § l03.Z(b)(13)(i). Further, 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).
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish el,igibility for the immigration · benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.