dismissed H-1B Case: Biotechnology

MATTER OF I-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 13, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a biotechnology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "QA 
engineer 1" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 
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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not comply with regulatory requirements governing Labor Condition Applications. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 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.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
II. DISCUSSION 
In support of its Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner provided the following 
statement: 
This appeal is being submitted in regards to the H -1 B application filed by [the 
Petitioner] on behalf of [the Beneficiary] .... We disagree with the finding of fact 
/ 
and application applied by USCIS in this matter and will be submitting a brief 
through our attorney arguing our position within 30 days. It is our position that the 
, submitted H-IB application should have been approved and that the case was 
erroneously denied. 
' 
The Petitioner also marked Box l(b) in Part 3 of the Form I-290B to indicate that a brief and/or 
~ additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of filing the appeal. However, we did not 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
receive a brief or additional evidence within the allotted timeframe. Accordingly, the record is 
considered complete. 
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. As such, 
we will summarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
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). The Petitioner has 
not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter of 1-, Inc., ID# 152589 (AAO Oct. 13, 2016) 
2