dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF IOTN-G-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 3, 2016 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer consulting business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"mechanical engineer" 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-1B 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 
evidence submitted did not establish that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary at the 
Petitioner's location as claimed, and did not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to work in the 
proffered position. 
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.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Petitioner marked Box 1(b) in Part 3 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, to 
indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of filing 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 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. 
Matter of IOTN-G-, Inc. 
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 of Otiende, 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 of IOTN-G-, Inc., ID# 7894 (AAO Aug. 3, 20 16) 
\ 
2