dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
JUN 1 9 2015 
DATE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigrat ion Servic e 
Admini strative Appeals Oftice (AAO) 
20 Massa chusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washingto n. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOI(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110 I (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. § I 03 .5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form 1-2908 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-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now on appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner submitted a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) to the Vermont 
Service Center on April 1, 2014. In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as an IT 
Consultant, 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)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner 
(1) qualifies as a U.S. employer having an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary; 
and (2) has specialty occupation work for the beneficiary for the duration of the requested 
H -1 B validity period. 
On October 8, 2014, the petitioner submitted the Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal or Motion). On 
the Form I-290B, Part 3, the petitioner checked Box 1 b, to indicate that a brief and/or additional 
evidence will be submitted within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. However, we never 
received the brief and/or additional evidence in support of the appeal. Thus, the record is complete 
as currently constituted. 
With the Form I-290B, the petitioner submitted an addendum that states the following: 
The employer has been asked to demonstrate that the job duties qualify the position 
as a specialty occupation by demonstrating with a preponderance of the evidence that 
the position meets one of the four criteria articulated in 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
With the materials and explanations in the record and submitted with this appeal, we 
believe that the employer has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it 
meets at least one of the four criteria. We believe that the USCIS has erroneously 
denied the petition. Hence, the denial should be reversed. The petition is approvable 
and should be approved. 
We find that the petitioner did not 
identify specifically how the director made any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact in denying the petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: "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." Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.