dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

(b)(6)
MAY 2 8 2015 
DATE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
V .S. Department of Homeland. Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service1 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the 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. § 103.5. 
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. 
Thank you, 
Ron Ros enberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
11 -employee "Super Market" established in In order to continue to employ the beneficiary in 
what it designates as a "Computer Systems 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. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). Thereafter, the petitioner responded to the Director's RFE. 
The Director reviewed the information and determined that the evidence of record failed to establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of 
record failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position.1 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that 
the petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: 
(1) the petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation; (2) the service center's RFE; (3) 
the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the Director's denial letter; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) and the petitioner's submissions on appeal. We reviewed the record in its 
entirety before issuing our decision. 2 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the Director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the specialty occupation issue. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petitiOn states that the 
proffered position is a Computer Systems Analyst position, and that it corresponds to Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 15-1121, Computer Systems Analysts from the 
1 In that decision, the Director also raised the issue of whether the petitioner has been paying the beneficiary 
the wage proffered. The Director stated that the wage issue was not a basis for the decision of denial but that, 
nevertheless, if the petitioner appealed the denial it would be obliged to overcome that issue on appeal. 
However, because our finding that the evidence does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation position is dispositive, we need not further address this issue. 
2 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is 
a wage Level I, entry-level, position. 
With the visa petition, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated February 12, 2014, from 
signing as the petitioner's president. As to the duties of the proffered 
position, stated: 
(The beneficiary's] job duties as Computer Systems Analyst will be to assess and 
analyze existing computer and database systems and carry out BPR (Business Process 
Review) information of our company, plan requirements of the company and model a 
computerized financial system based on the requirements analysis. Design Forms and 
reports using a relational database software package to upgrade business information 
systems. Write relational databases to create stored procedures and functions to assist 
in automating our accounting and purchasing process. Also design and set up our 
local area network. Design and develop online B2C and B2B system to conduct 
purchase and other transactions via secure HTTP. System Analyst will plan develop 
new computer systems and devise ways to apply existing systems' resources to 
additional operations. Design, analysis and development of Web and tranent [sic] 
applications with focus on eccommerce solutions. 
With respect to the educational requirements for the proffered position, counsel for the petitioner 
stated in a letter dated July 8, 2014: "Please note that it is well established that [the] beneficiary's 
job Computer Systems Analyst is a specialty occupation and it requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in specific field to perform the job duties." 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. The Law 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i) (l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor 
including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, 
social sciences, medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, 
theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in 
the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the mtmmum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter 
of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meetirig the definition of specialty occupation would result 
in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement 
in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H -lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien,. and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, we observe that the petitioner has never effectively claimed that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position as it has never claimed that the 
proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in any identified 
specialty. 
In his February 12, 2014 letter, stated that the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered 
position, but did not identify any educational requirement of the position. In his July 8, 2014 letter, 
again did not identify any specific specialty in which the proffered position requires a 
degree. In his July 8, 2014 letter, counsel stated, "[the] beneficiary's job Computer Systems Analyst 
is a specialty occupation and it requires at least a bachelor's degree in specific field to perform the 
job duties." Counsel did not, however, identify the specific specialty in which the proffered position 
requires a degree. The petitioner has never identified any specific specialty, or even any range of 
specialties, in which the proffered position requires a degree. 
· 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn next to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4) (iii)(A). We will first discuss the record of proceeding in relation to the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
position. We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
The petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC (ONET/OES) code 
and title 15-1121, Computer Systems Analysts, from O*NET. The Handbook states the following 
with regard to the educational requirements of computer systems analyst positions: 
How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst 
A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees who have skills in information technology or computer programming. 
Education 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more 
appropriate. 
Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is 
not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 
Many systems analysts continue to take classes throughout their careers so that they 
can learn about new and innovative technologies and keep their skills competitive. 
Technological advances come so rapidly in the computer field that continual study is 
necessary to remain competitive. 
Systems analysts must understand the business field they are working in. For 
example, a hospital may want an analyst with a background or coursework in health 
management, and an analyst working for a bank may need to understand finance. 
Advancement 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014- 2015 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
With experience, systems analysts can advance to project manager and lead a team of 
analysts. Some can eventually become information technology (IT) directors or chief 
technology officers. For more information, see the profile on computer and 
information systems managers. 
Important Qualities 
Analytical skills. Analysts must interpret complex information from various sources 
and be able to decide the best way to move forward on a project. They must also be 
able to figure out how changes may affect the project. 
Communication skills. Analysts work as a go-between with management and the IT 
department and must be able to explain complex issues in a way that both will 
understand. 
Creativity. Because analysts are tasked with finding innovative solutions to computer 
problems, an ability to "think outside the box" is important. 
Jd. at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts. 
htm#tab-4 (last visited May 20, 2015). 
The Handbook makes clear that computer systems analyst positions do not, as a category, require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree or the equivalent, as it indicates that many systems analysts have a 
liberal arts degree and programming knowledge, rather than a degree in a specific specialty directly 
related to systems analysis. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide persuasive 
evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other three 
criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the 
petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will 
consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceeding, the numerous 
duties that the petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge 
in the computer/IT field, but do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary education 
leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such 
knowledge. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
As the evidence of record does not establish that the particular position here proffered is one for 
which the normal minimum entry requirement is a baccalaureate or higher degree, in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Next, we find that the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1165 (quoting 
Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other reliable and authoritative source, indicates 
that there is a standard, minimum entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
Also, there are no submissions from professional associations, individuals, or similar firms in the 
petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to the proffered position 
are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for entry into those positions. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to positions paralle l positions with organizations 
that are in the petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the petitioner. The petitioner has not, 
therefore, satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) (2), which provides that "an employer may show that its particular position is so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree." A review of the 
record indicates that the petitioner has failed to credibly demonstrate that the duties that comprise 
the proffered position entail such complexity or uniqueness as to constitute a position so complex or 
unique that it can be performed only by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
Specifically, the record fails to demonstrate how the duties that collectively constitute the proffered 
position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perform them. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course 
of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the particular 
position here. 
Further, as was also noted above, the LCA submitted in support of the visa petition is approved for a 
wage Level I computer systems analyst, an indication that the proffered position is an entry-level 
position for an employee who has only a basic understanding of computer systems analysis. This 
does not support the proposition that the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other 
computer systems analyst positions that it can only be performed by a person with a specific 
bachelor's degree, especially as the Handbook suggests that some computer systems analyst 
positions do not require such a degree. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the evidence fails to 
demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the 
same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the 
petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
We will next address the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which may be satisfied if the 
petitioner demonstrates that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position. 
In his July 8, 2014 letter, indicated that the petitioner has never hired anyone in the 
proffered position before, instead relying on contractors for its computer systems analyst needs. 
did not indicate that the petitioner imposed any educational requirements on those 
contractors. 
While a first-time hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from 
recognition as a specialty occupation, it is unclear how an employer that has never recruited and 
hired for the position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), 
which requires a demonstration that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, and has not, therefore, satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position have not been shown to 
be of a nature so specialized and complex they require knowledge usually associated with 
attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Overall, the evidence of record is inadequate to establish that the duties of the position are so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Further, as was noted above, the petitioner filed the instant visa petition for a wage Level I computer 
systems analyst position, a position for a beginning level employee with only a basic understanding 
of such positions. This does not support the proposition that the nature of the specific duties of the 
proffered position is so specialized and complex that their performance is usually associated with 
the attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, directly 
related to computer systems analysis, especially as the Handbook indicates that some computer 
systems analyst positions require no such degree. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
The petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
We recognize that this is an extension petition. However, with reference to the specialty occupation 
issue we observe that we are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has 
not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. 
Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be 
"absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding 
precedent." Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 
U.S. 1008 (1988). A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve 
the petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
benefit sought. 55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). A prior approval also does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a reassessment of eligibility 
for the benefit sought. See Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 
(5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 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). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.