t'\
. I
·v ..
DATE: FEB 1 2 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
· IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary :·
. U ;s. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Administrative Appeals Drfice (AAO)
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090
Washington , DC 20529-2090
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
FILE:
PETITION: . Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree or an A:Jien 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
INSTRUCfiONS:
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 thaty~u might have concerning your case must be made to that office. Thank you,
' -I~ ·
Ron Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
(b)(6)Page 2
DISCUSSION:· The Director, Texas Service Center, (director) denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(J) .
The petitioner describes itself as a software development business. It seeks to permanently employ the benefiCiary in the United States . as a senior software engineer pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, an ETA Form 9089, Application .for Permanent Employment Certification, approved by the Department of Labor (DOL), accompanied the petition. Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum .level of education stated on the labor certification. Specifically, the director determined that the beneficiary did not possess a.p advanced degree . . Effective March 4, 2010, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a) requires that a new Form G-28 "must be filed with an appeal filed with th~ [AAO]." 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a) further requires that the Form G-28 "must be properly . completed and signed by the petitioner, applicant or respondent to authorize representation in order for the appearance to be recognized by DHS."
The Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, was filed on October 20, 2011, by Attorney at Law. However, the appeal was not accompanied by a properly executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry . of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, signed by both the atfomey and by an ·authorized official of ·the petitioning entity.
On November 1, 2011, the director issued a notice to the individual who filed the appeal, advising him of -the necessity to submit .a properly executed Form G-28 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1Cl33(a)(2)(v)(A)(2) and its subclauses .. The individual who filed .the appeal was ·advised that the · failure to submit a properly executed Form G-28 "may result in the appeal being considered improperly filed." As of this date, rio response has. been receiyed. There is no evidence in the record that the petitioner tonsented to the filing of the appeal. · · In addition, the. AAO notes that on· the Form I-290B, the petitioner ·indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days. On the Form I-290B, Pa·rt 3, no statement was provided as the basis for the appeal. · More than 15 months have elapsed and no brief or additional evidence have been received . . Thus, even if the appeal were properly filed, it w~uld be summarily dismissed as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically any errmieous conclusion of .law or statement of fad for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).
As the appeal was not properly filed, and it is unclear whether or not the petitioner con.Sented to having an appeal filed on its behalf, it will be ~ejected. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(J).
ORDER: · . The appeal is rejected.