dismissed H-1B Case: It And Software Development

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 2 3 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Jmmigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N. W ., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form l-290B 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. 
Thank you, 
n Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
,{jj ~ 
/1 )\\··· ll# ~· 
1" ; 
;,L ,/ ~ . . ..11 
~w.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied 
the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
28-employee "IT and Software Development" firm established in In order to employ the 
beneficiary in what it designates as a "QA Manager" position, 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)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence (1) did not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation and (2) did not establish that the Labor 
Condition Application submitted to support the visa petition is valid for the period of employment 
requested in the visa petition. The petitioner submitted a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
and asserts that the Director's bases for denial were erroneous and contends that it satisfied all 
evidentiary requirements. 1 
On March 31, 2015, we issued a notice pertinent to the purported signatures of on 
various documents in the record. We requested that the petitioner provide specific evidence pertinent to 
that issue. The petitioner was afforded 30 days from the date of the notice in which to respond. Thus, 
the response was due on Thursday, April 30, 2015 (plus three days for service by mail). The petitioner 
did not respond within the time period allowed? 
A benefit request may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for 
both reasons if a petitioner does not respond to a notice by the required date. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(13)(i) . In the notice, 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 of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l4). 
As the petitioner did not respond to our notice within the time afforded, the petition is deniable under 
the regulatory provisions cited above. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the petitioner's 
benefit request will be summarily denied as abandoned and denied due to the failure to submit 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry, making any remaining issues in this 
proceeding moot. 
1 In Part 3 of the Form l-290B, the petitioner marked box l.b. to indicate that it was filing an appeal and that a 
brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to us within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. 
However, no further documentation was provided within the allotted time period. 
2 On June 4, 2015, sixty-five days after the notice was issued, we received a response from the petitioner to 
our notice. The response was therefore untimely. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit all of the requested 
documentation. 
(b)(6)