dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8961645 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 01, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology staffing and consulting business, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "Java full stack developer" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations.1 The H-18 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el ig ibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
Upon review of the matter, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that it is a two-employee company operating in Virginia. During a preliminary 
review of the record, we could not determine whether the Petitioner is an active business in good 
standing. For instance, a search of the Virginia State Corporation Commission website yielded no 
results for the Petitioner. 3 
The Petitioner stated that it maintained "virtual office space" at a residential home in Virginia, but that 
no one worked at this location. The Petitioner also submitted a virtual office service agreement for 
this location; however, it is not apparent what services this agreement covers. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner did not submit a legible copy of this agreement. 
The record contains evidence that the Petitioner incorporated in Delaware, however this does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner is active and in good standing with any State. Likewise, the tax 
documents in the record are self-completed and self-filed forms. The record does not contain 
1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See generally https://cis.scc.virginia.gov/ (last visited Nov. 30, 2020). 
documents indicating that these forms were actually filed with or accepted by any State, nor that any 
associated tax return has been processed. 
Collectively, this evidence suggests that no bona fide job offer exists to support the petition. As such, 
we issued the Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and Request for Evidence (NOID/RFE) on May 
26, 2020. We described the evidentiary shortcomings in the record and requested that the Petitioner 
respond with evidence to support its petition. We received no response from the Petitioner. 
A benefit request may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both 
reasons if a petitioner fails to respond to an RFE/NOID by the required date.4 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. Because the Petitioner did not respond to the 
RFE/NOID, we will dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i). 
2