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 in your case . All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he 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 yt)U wish to have considered, you rna/file a motion to reconsider or a motion to r~.:opcn in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $()30. Till: specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not tile any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 10J.5(a)(l)(i) requires any rmition to he filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Thank you,
Ron Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office
. www.uscis.gov
.,;. .. -:~
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrativ_e Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.
The petitioner is a consumer credit counseling service. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a counselor/educator 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; a labor certification accompanied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the · visa petition. The director denied the petition accordingly.
In a request for evidence (RFE) dated December 20, 2012, the AAO requested evidence to establish that the petitioner has the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition and continuing up to the present. 1 Specifically, the petitioner was · instructed to submit the tax return for the predecessor, o • , for 2010 (fiscal year September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011), Forms W-2 or 1099 (if any) for the beneficiary for 2010, 2011" and 2012, and the petitioner's 2010 and 2011 tax returns. · This office allowed the petitioner 60 days in which to respond to the RFE. In the RFE, the AAO specifically alerted the petitioner that failure to respond to the RFE could result in dismissal· of the appeal: 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). More than 60 days have passed and the petitioner has failed to respond with proof that it has the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage. ·
Thus, the appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13).
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
The AAO conducts appellate review on·a de novo basis. The AAO's de novo authority is well recognized by the federal courts. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004).