dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Support

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-T- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 29,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an education and consulting business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "computer user support specialist" 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker. The matter is now before us on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal as abandoned. 
I. BACKGROUND 
During a preliminary review of the record, we were unable to determine that the Petitioner was a 
business in good standing. A search of the New York State, Department of State, Division of 
Corporations Entity Information website indicated that the Petitioner's right to transact business in 
New York was inactive. We issued a notice of intent to deny (NOlO) and provided the Petitioner 
with the opportunity to submit evidence to rebut this information. The Petitioner was afforded 30 
days (plus three days for mail) to respond to the request. The Petitioner, however, has not provided 
evidence demonstrating that it is active and in good standing in New York. 1 
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
If the appellant fails to respond to a NOlO by the required date, we may summarily dismiss the 
appeal as abandoned, dismiss based on the record, or dismiss for both reasons. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(13)(i)? When responding to a NOlO, the Petitioner must timely submit all requested 
materials together at one time. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l1). Additional time to respond to a NOID may 
not be granted. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(8)(iv). 
1 On June 9, 2017, the Petitioner responded to the NOID requesting an extension; however, an extension may not be 
granted. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(8)(iv). 
2 As further provided in 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14), the failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the benefit request. 
Matter of A-T- Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not provided the requested information, the benefit request is deniable under 
the regulatory provision cited above making any remaining issues in this proceeding moot. 3 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13). 
Cite as Matter of A-T- Inc., ID# 481165 (AAO June 29, 2017) 
3 We further note that the Petitioner does not appear to have established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation in accordance with section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
2