Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Abi I ity Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immi gration 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 pol icy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or pol icy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen , respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requir·ements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 1 03 .:.· 1)7' not file a motion directly with the AAO .
/ .. ....-· .. /
,./...- on Rosenberg
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, (director) 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 describes itself as an IS/IT consultancy and seeks to employ the beneficiary as a computer software engineer, applications. The petitioner requests classification of the beneficiary as an advanced degree professional 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. Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary satisfied the minimum level of education stated on the labor certification .
The AAO issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on April 8, 2014, which identified inconsistencies between the three credentials evaluations submitted by the petitioner.Inconsistencies in the record The petitioner was advised of its responsibility to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and that attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies , absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988). The petitioner was further advised that we had reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and that the EDGE database concluded that the beneficiary 's degree did not satisfy the educational requirements detailed on the labor certification. In the NOID , we specifically alerted the petitioner that failure to respond to the NOID would result in dismissal since we could not substantively adjudicate the appeal without the information requested. 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).
As of the date of this decision, the petitioner has not responded to our NOID. Because the petitioner failed to respond to the NOID, we are summarily dismissing the appeal as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l3)(i). 1
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 summarily dismissed as abandoned.