dismissed EB-3 Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-T-S- LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 20,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States as a network systems engineer under the immigrant classification of 
skilled worker. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(3)(A)(i). The Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will 
be summarily dismissed. 
The I-140 petition was filed on November 17, 2014. The petition was accompanied by an ETA Form 
9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, which was filed with the Department of 
Labor (DOL) on November 20, 2013, and certified by the DOL (labor certification) on May 22, 2014. 
On March 5, 2015, the Director issued a Request for Evidence, to which the Petitioner responded on 
May 28, 2015, with additional documentation. 
In a decision dated June 25, 2015, the Director denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner 
did not establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of the instant Beneficiary, as well as 
the proffered wages of all the other beneficiaries of I -140 petitions it has filed, from the priority date 
of the instant petition (November 20, 2013) onward. 
On July 27, 2015, the Petitioner filed a timely appeal on Form I-290B. In Part 3 of the Form I-290B the 
Petitioner indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to us within 30 days. 
Part 4 of the Form I-290B instructed the Petitioner, in pertinent part, as follows: 
On a separate sheet of paper, you must provide a statement regarding the basis for the 
appeal or motion. You must include your name and A-number or USCIS ELlS Account 
Number on the top of each sheet. 
Appeal: Provide a statement that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law 
or fact in the decision being appealed. 
(Emphases in the original.) Despite these instructions on the Form I-290B the Petitioner did not provide 
any statement in support of the appeal. On August 25, 2015, the Petitioner submitted a letter to us 
requesting an additional 30 days (or until September 25, 2015) to submit a brief in support of the 
appeal. Accompanying the letter were copies of previously submitted lists of the Petitioner's approved, 
Matter of V-T-S- Ltd. 
pending, denied, rejected, and withdrawn I-140 petitions. No brief was received by September 25, 
2015, however, nor any other communication from the Petitioner. No further materials have been 
received since the Petitioner's extension request letter of August 25, 2015. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that an appeal shall be summarily dismissed "when 
the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal." 
In this case the Petitioner has identified neither any erroneous conclusion of law nor any erroneous 
factual findings in the Director's decision. The Petitioner has not provided any additional evidence 
to be considered on appeal. In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), therefore, the appeal will 
be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofV-T-S- Ltd., ID# 15592 (AAO Jan. 20, 2016) 
2