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 be made to that office.
If you believe we 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 us. 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, on osenberg hief, Administrative Appeals Office
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i).
The petitioner describes itself as an information technologies company. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a systems analyst. 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). The petition is accompanied by a labor certification approved by the U.S. Department of Labor.
The Texas Service Center director denied the petition. The director's decision concludes that the etitioner was not in business at the time of adjudication, and that the entity that filed the appeal, (FEIN J (appellant), did not establish that it had a successor-in-interest relationship with the petitioner.
The record shows that the appeal makes a specific allegation of error in law or fact. The procedural history in this case is documented by the record and incorporated into the decision. Further elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary.
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). We consider all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal. 1
On August 14, 2014, we sent the petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal (NOID) with a copy to counsel of record, indicating that: the record does not establish that the appellant is the petitioner's successor-in-interest on the petition; neither the petitioner nor the appellant has established the ability to pay the proffered wage; the record does not establish that the petition supports an immigrant visa in the advanced degree category; and the beneficiary does not qualify for classification as an advanced degree professional pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). We allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to submit a response. We informed the petitioner that failure to respond to the NOID would result in a dismissal of the appeal.
As of the date of this decision, the petitioner has not responded to our NOID. 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). Since the petitioner failed to respond to the NOID, the appeal will be summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 1 03.2(b )(13)(i).
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.