PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2013-02-05 · NSC · FEB052013_02B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The director determined that the petitioner had not established it had ·the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition and that the beneficiary met the qualification requirements of the. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • The appeal shall be summarily dismissed.· ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. See in text

Main reasons given

  • The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (1) AAO finding (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Departmeat ofHomelaad Security U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Admiaistrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · · DATE: ·office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: FEB 0 5 2013 · IN RE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: · PETITION: Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced

    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:

    SELF-REPRESENTED

    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.

    Thankyou, ·

    Ron Rosenberg

    Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.osCis.gov

    -. .) - - ~

    DISCUS~ION: The employment-based Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.

    The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as an advanced degree professional. The director determined that the petitioner had not established it had ·the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition and that the beneficiary met the qualification requirements of the. offered position. · On appeal, the petitioner states: that it was not able to submit documents requested by the director's request for evidence because that request was not received. The petitioner further states that additional document(s) will be submitted in 30 days to the AAO.

    As of this date, almost two years later, the AAO has -received nothing further, and the regulation requires that any brief shall be submitted directly to the AAO. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.J(a)(2)(vii) and (viii).-

    As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appealshall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence. The appeal shall be summarily dismissed.· ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.