dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-K-S-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 29, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a gas station and convenienc e store, seeks to seeks to continue to employ the 
Beneficiary as an "accountant" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) ~ection l0l( a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the job offered qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 1 We will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An officer will summarily dismiss an appeal when the Petitioner does not identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.P.R.§ l033(a)(l)(v). 
II. DISC USSION 
The Petitioner marked Box l(b) in Part 3 o f the Form l-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion , to 
indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of tiling the 
appeal. However , we did not receive a brief or additional evidence within the allotted timeframe. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide a separate statement regarding the basis of the appeal, as 
~ instructed at Part 4 of the Form I-290B. Accordingly, the record is consider ed complete. 
1 On 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice suspended the attorney of the record from the practice of law 
before the Board of Immigration Appeals , the Immigration Courts , and the Departm ent of Homeland Securit y. The 
suspension is still standing . 
Matter of B-K-S-
Upon review of the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not specifically identified any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. Further, the Petitioner has 
made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in the Director's decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show 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). Inasmuch as the 
Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this 
proceeding, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofB-K-S-, ID# 254274 (AAO Dec. 29, 2016) 
2