dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
; nvasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 137 5 1 179 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 2 20% 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that orignally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 137 51179 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is an IT solutions and e-services provider that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a programmer 
analyst. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to 9 lOl(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the petitioner has not demonstrated that an employer-employee 
relationship exists or that it has a bona fide position for the beneficiary. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
letter and a purchase order. The petitioner also submits the previously submitted documentation: a corporate 
consulting agreement and an offer of employment addressed to the beneficiary. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. 
See 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2@)(14). 
On July 15,2004, the director sent a request to the petitioner for additional evidence and stated, in part: 
Additionally, submit copies of contractual agreements between the petitioner and the 
beneficiary, as well as copies of contractual agreements between the petitioner and the 
companies for which the beneficiary will be providing consulting services. Contracts should 
specify the contracted duties to be performed by the "consultant" while working for the client. 
Include copies of the statements of work, work orders and any other documents or appendices. 
Documentation should svecifv duties, dates of services reauested, work schedule and pav 
schedule. (Emphasis in the original.) 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BL4 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted 
the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the previously requested evidence that is now submitted for the 
first time on appeal. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Neither the statements at section 3 of the Form I-290B nor the accompanying letter, dated November 24, 2004, 
specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in denying the petition. As the 
petitioner does not present additional evidence on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the appeal will 
be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
WAC 04 137 51179 
Page 3 
The burden of proof in this proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.