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

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2013-05-03 · NSC · MAY032013_01B5203

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

Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it had the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage at the time the priority date was established and continuing to the present. See in text

What the AAO decided

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 (2)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    DATEMAY 0 3 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER · INRE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: U.S. D~parbnent of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Im.migration Services FILE: · 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:

    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 he 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.

    Thank you, r:.-; ,, I <~''/ if.· cr, ._, &

    '1. ' I . . L

    1 ~ ... ~·;.t- r ... ~ 1,·! Lt-kf'1#-tc .(.

    Ron Rosenberg

    Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Offic

    DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.

    The petitioner is in a software services and development business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as an analytical strategist. As required by statute, a labor certification accompanied the petition. Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it had the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage at the time the priority date was established and continuing to the present.

    The AAO issued a request for evidence (RFE) on January 16, 2013 requesting evidence to demonstrate the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage of $80,059.00 from the priority date, December 28, 2010 and onwards; and for evidence demonstrating its ability to pay the proffered wage for each additional beneficiary sponsored by the petitioner.1 The AAO also requested that the petitioner provide evidence to establish that the beneficiary possessed all the education, training, and experience specified on the labor certification as of the priority date.

    This offiCe allowed the petitioner 12 weeks in which to provide the evidence requested. The notice was sent to the petitioner and to counsel's last known address. The petitioner was cautioned that without a meaningful response to the line of inquiry set forth in the RFE, the AAO would be unable to substantively adjudicate the appeal. To date, there has been no response to the AAO's RFE. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denyingthe petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). Because the petitioner failed to respond to the RFE and failed to provide the evidence requested, the AAO is dismissing the appeal.

    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.