dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Q-4S- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Offi(~e 
DATE: FEB. 8, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "business 
analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, 
denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
On August 1 7, 2015, the Director issued a decision denying the petition, finding that the Petitioner 
had not demonstrated (1) that the proffered position qualifies for treatment as a specialty occupation 
in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, and (2) that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to work in any specialty occupation position. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. However, the Petitioner submitted no evidence or 
information addressing the actual grounds for denial, nor did the Petitioner dispute the ground for 
denial. Although the Petitioner marked Box l.b. in Part 3 of the Form I-290B, indicating that a brief 
and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days, the Petitioner has not supplemented 
its appeal with any additional submissions. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as 
presently constituted. 
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. 
The Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as 
a basis for the appeal. As noted, the Petitioner did not provide a brief or additional evidence in 
support of the appeal despite indicating on the Form I-290B that it intended do so. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not provide with its appeal a separate statement regarding the basis of the appeal, as 
instructed at Part 4 of the Form I-290B. A petitioner filing an appeal is required to provide a 
statement that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being 
appealed. Here, the Petitioner has made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in 
Matter of Q-4S- Corp. 
the Director's decision. Therefore, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), the appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 
128 (BIA 2013). Inasmuch as the Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion 
of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the Petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofQ-4S- Corp., ID# 16633 (AAO Feb. 8, 2016) 
2