dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-C-S- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 1, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "Computer Systems Architect" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor 's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the evidence 
of record does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies for treatment as a specialty 
occupation position and does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to work in the 
proffered position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record is sufficient to demonstrate that the visa petition should be 
approved. We will summarily dismiss the appeal as abandoned. 
On February 11, 2016, we issued a request for evidence (RFE) pertinent to the purported signatures 
of on various documents in the record. 
1 
More specifically, we observed that the 
signatures differ to such a degree that it was not clear whether all of them, or any of them, were 
placed by We requested that the Petitioner provide specific evidence pertinent to that 
issue. A response to that notice was due on March 15, 2016. The Petitioner did not respond within 
the time period allowed in the request, or any time since then. 
In the RFE, we specifically alerted the Petitioner that failure to respond to the notice by the required 
date could result in dismissal. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line 
1 A copy ofthe RFE was also sent to the attorney that is listed on the new Form G-28 , Notice of Entry of Appearance as 
Attorney or Accredited Representative. Without knowing who signed the new Form G-28 submitted with the appeal on 
behalf of the Petitioner , and his or her capacity to sign on the Petitioner's behalf , we cannot recognize the Form G-28 to 
have been properly executed. Consequently, without a properly executed Form G-28 authorizing counsel to represent 
the Petitioner, we cannot recognize counsel as a representative for the Petitioner during the appeal proceedings. 
Matter ojT-C-S- Inc 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.P.R. § 103 .2(b )(14 ). Because the 
Petitioner did not respond to the RPE, we are summarily dismissing the appeal as abandoned 
pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(13)(i). 
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) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(13). 
Cite as Matter ofT-C-S- Inc, ID# 16692 (AAO Apr. 1, 2016) 
2