dismissed H-1B Case: Business Development

(b)(6)
MATTER OF P-D-Q-B-S-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CE~TER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 20, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a bakery, stated that it sought to temporarily employ the Beneficia ry as a "business 
development manager" under 
the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupation s. See 
Innnigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i )(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions . 
The matter is nm.v before us on appeal. We will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
T. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A petition may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both 
reasons if a petitioner does not respond to a reque st for evidence or a notice of intent to deny/dismiss 
by the required date_ 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b)(l3)(i). Further, the failure to submit requested evidence 
that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying a benefit request. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). 
II. DISCUSSION 
On March 1, 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service s (tJS CIS) conduc ted an admini strative 
site visit at located at 
VA. The officers met with 
the admini strative site visit , provided inform ation regarding the 
During the course of 
business 
operation s, including the following: 
In 2013, sold the to 
Thereafter , in Januar y 2015, 
and 
repurchased the busines s 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-D-Q-B-S-. LLC 
and he is currently the sole owner and the only employee. alone, is 
responsible for the daily operations, and and 
are not authorized to represen t or incur any obligations for 
the does not intend to employ 
We sent a notice of intent to dismiss and request for evidence to the petthoning entity. 1 We 
specifically notified the Petitioner that failure to respond could result in summary dismissal of the 
benetit request as abandoned. 1\ evertheless, the Petitioner did not respond. 
III. COt-.TLUSION 
Therefore, we are summarily dismissing the appeal as abandoned.2 The burden is on the Petitioner to 
show eligibility for the 
immigrati on benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; A-fatter 
ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.3 
ORDER : The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13). 
Cite as Afatter of P-D-Q-B-S-. LLC, ID# 12884 (AAO June 20, 2016) 
1 We stated in our notice that if the petitioning entity is represented by counsel , it must provide a new, properly executed 
Fonn G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, in accordance with 8 C.F. R. 
§ 292.4(a). However, the Petitioner did not respond. Therefore , there is no representative of record. 
2 Moreover, the instant appeal is moot if the petitionin g entity does not intend to employ the Beneficiary. See Wong v. 
Napolitano, 654 F.Supp.2d 1184, 1192 (D. Or. 2009) (holding that "a live controv ersy requ trement is provided by a 
present intent by both parties to enter into an employment relationship which is being thwarted by USCIS or some other 
party") . 
· In light of the numerou& and unresolved discrepanci es in the record of proceeding, USC IS reserves the right to make a 
formal finding of material misrepresentation or a finding of fraud in the future under &epa rate proceeding. A USCIS 
finding of ,.,·illful, material misrepre sentation may lead to criminal penalties. See 18 U.S .C. §§ 1001, 1546; see also U.S. 
v. O'Connor , 158 F .Supp.2d 697 (E.D. Va. 200 I). Knowingly and w illfully making materially false or fraudulent 
stateme nts or using false writings or documents may result in a fine and imprisonment of not more than 5 
years. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Furthermore , "[v.·]hoever knowingly makes under oath, or as penni tted under penalty of 
perjury under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement \vith respect 
to a material fact in any applica tion, affidav it, or other document required by the immigratio n laws or regulatio ns 
pre scribed thereunder, or knowin gly presents any such applica tion, affidavit, or other doc ument whic.h contains any such 
false .stateme nt or which fails to contain any reasonable basis in law or fact ... (s.]hall be fined under this title or 
imprisoned not more than ... I 0 years ... . " 
2