dismissed H-1B

dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Information Technology

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner failed to submit a brief or statement that specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the original decision. Despite indicating on the Form I-290B that a brief would be submitted, nothing was received by the AAO.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Error In Appeal

View Full Decision Text

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-S- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: [MMM. DD, YYYY] 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology and software consulting and development company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "software programmer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identifies an 
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. On the Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner stated that a brief or additional evidence would be submitted within 
30 days ofthe January 10,2017, filing date. However, we have not received anything further from 
the Petitioner to date. Because the Petitioner has not identified a specific, erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact in the Director's decision below, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofM-S- LLC, ID# 441818 (AAO July 5, 2017)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.