dismissed H-1B

dismissed H-1B Case: It/Computer Software

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 It/Computer Software

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide a brief or additional evidence after filing the appeal. The petitioner did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact from the original decision, which is a regulatory requirement for an appeal to proceed.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Specific Error Of Law Or Fact Failure To Submit A Brief Or Additional Evidence

View Full Decision Text

MATTER OF L-T -, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 29, 2015 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an "IT/computer software" business, seeks to continue to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"programmer/analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant" classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, California 
Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The Petitioner submitted the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and marked Box "b" in Part 
3, indicating that the Petitioner was filing an appeal and would send a brief and/or additional 
evidence within 30 days. The Form I-290B was filed on August 26, 2015. To date, however, we 
have received neither a brief nor additional evidence from the Petitioner. Accordingly, the record of 
proceedings is deemed complete as currently constituted. 
The Petitioner's only comment about the appeal is the following statement in the letter which 
accompanied the Form I-290B: 
Appeal of Decision 
Petitioner is appealing the decision made by the California Service Center on August 
20, 2015 on [the petition in question]. Petitioner believes that USCIS misapplied the 
applicable laws and will demonstrate that under the applicable law and precedent the 
application is approvable. 
The appeal, therefore, does not assign any specific legal or factual error to the Director's decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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." As the Petitioner does not 
identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, 
the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
Matter of L-T-, Inc. 
(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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
Cite as Matter of L-T-, Inc., ID# 15967 (AAO Dec. 29, 2015) 
2

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.