dismissed H-1B

dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Programming

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Computer Programming

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the original decision. Although the Petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief would be submitted within 30 days, no such brief or additional evidence was ever received by the AAO.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To State Basis For Appeal

View Full Decision Text

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 24,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a custom software development and computer programming services company, seeks 
to employ the Beneficiary as a computer programmer analyst under the H-1 B 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)(l5)(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the pat1y concerned 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner did not include a statement regarding the basis for the appeal upon its tiling on 
November 21, 2016. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner stated that a 
brief or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of filing. However, we have not 
received anything further from the Petitioner to date. Because the Petitioner has not identified any 
specific, erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision below, the 
appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests with the Petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not satisfied that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)( 1 )(v). 
Cite as Matter ofA-Inc., ID# 324334 (AAO Feb. 24, 2017)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.