dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 9 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision ofthe Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitiOner describes itself as a 
26-employee "Consulting Services & Software development Services" firm established in In 
order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a "Computer System Analyst" position, the 
petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 11 01 ( a)(15)(H)(i)(b ). 
The Director denied the petitiOn, finding that the evidence did not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation position. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that the Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that the petitioner satisfied all 
evidentiary requirements. 
We conducted a preliminary review of the record of proceeding and found that the signature for the 
petitioner's authorized official, varies significantly throughout the record of 
proceeding. On April 17, 2015, we issued a notice pertinent to the purported signatures of Ms. 
We requested that the petitioner provide specific evidence pertinent to that issue. A 
response to that notice was due on May 20, 2015. The petitioner did not respond within the time 
period allowed in the notice, or any time since then. 
A petition may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both 
reasons if a petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or a notice of intent to 
deny by the required date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i). The failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(14). 
As the petitioner has not responded to our notice, the appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will 
be denied, due to the failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry, 
making any remaining issues in this proceeding moot. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.