dismissed H-1B Case: Software Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 3182324 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software consulting firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 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 Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position qualified as a 
specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the 
Director erred in denying the petition on the stated basis. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requires a valid signature on certain documents filed 
with the agency (request).1 Unless specifically authorized, an individual representing a petitioner must 
personally sign his or her own request before filing it with USCIS. On the Form G-28, Notice of Entry 
of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, and Form l-290B , Notice of Appeal or 
Motion,! I the organization 's president, signed the forms. 
In reviewing the appeal, we observed that the various signatures located across the record of 
proceeding attributed to this individual differed visibly. On December 19, 2019, we issued a Notice 
of Intent to Dismiss and Request for Evidence (NOID/RFE) to the Petitioner. Within this 
correspondence , we requested an explanation for these variances, along with sworn statements and 
copies of government-issued identification documents froml I and any other individual who 
signed the forms and documents in the record. We also requested several other forms of evidence we 
found lacking within the record that we considered as a collective basis upon which to dismiss this 
appeal, which we will discuss below. 
1 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). 
First we discuss the signature issue. Without knowing who signed the documents, and that individual's 
capacity to sign on the petitioning organization's behalf: we cannot recognize the appeal to have been 
properly filed by an affected party with legal standing in these proceedings. 2• 3 In response to our 
RFE/NOID, the Petitioner (through I ~ provided a signed statement and a photocopy of his 
driver's license. 
Our first observation is that I jdid not folly comply with our request concerning the evidence 
relating to his signature. Specifically, we notified him that he should submit "[a] sworn (notarized) 
written statement from I I The statement should certify, pursuant to the penalty of perjury 
under the laws of the United States of America that all of the information is true and complete." 
However, I I only provided a signed statement that was not notarized, nor did it offer 
certification under the penalty of perjury. Where a petitioner does not submit all requested additional 
evidence and requests a decision based on the evidence already submitted, a decision shall be issued 
based on the record. Failure to submit requested evidence, which precludes a material line of inquiry, 
shall be grounds for denying the benefit request. 4 
Nevertheless, we will still consider! l's response. I I stated that he signed all the 
concomitant forms, and he explained, "At times I do only initials only [sic] as I was signing more then 
[sic] 5-6 pages .... " A trier of fact should consider the issues presented and provide a sufficiently 
reasoned analysis. They are not however, required to interpret evidence in the manner a petitioner 
advocates. 5 Similarly, we are not required to accept a petitioner's assertions, even if plausible, where 
there are other permissible views of the evidence based on the record. 6 As a result, even though the 
Petitioner's justification for the markedly different signatures-purportedly made by the same 
person-may be one possible explanation, we are not required to view it as the most likely scenario 
we will rely on within our determination. 
While we accept the Petitioner's response as one possible explanation, we do not consider it to be one 
that establishes that I I was the actual individual who signed both the Form 1-129 and the 
Form 1-290B, nor have they established that those signing the forms were authorized to sign a request 
or other document that were filed with USCIS on behalf of a corporation or other legal entity. 7 If the 
Petitioner does not establish that both the Form 1-290B and the Form 1-129 were personally signed by 
an authorized individual, we cannot recognize the appeal to have been properly filed by an affected 
party with legal standing in these proceedings. 8 Nor can we decide that the Petitioner properly filed 
this appeal, and we will dismiss this filing. 9 We farther note that the examples ofl Is 
signature on the material he submitted in response to our RFE/NOID were not similar to the signature 
on the documentation within the initial petition filing. 
2 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
3 In addition, without knowing who signed the documentation, we cannot determine whether the H-IB petition was 
properly filed. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a). 
4 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
5 See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2014); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007). 
6 Matter of D-R-. 25 T&N Dec. 445, 455 (BIA 2011) ( citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, NC., 470 U.S. 564. 574 
(1985), which found that where two permissible views of evidence exist, a factfinder's choice between them cannot be 
considered erroneous). 
7 See 1 USC1S Policy Manual B.2(C)(3). https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
8 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
9 See 1 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at B.2(A). 
2 
Next, the Petitioner failed to provide any response to the remaining shortcomings we listed within the 
RFE/NOID, or any evidence we requested relating to those deficiencies. As we provided analysis for 
each of those topics within the RFE/NOID, we will only provide the below list within this decision: 
• The Petitioner failed to respond to other USCIS representatives when contacted by telephone 
and electronic mail without explanation; 
• We questioned whether the petitioning organization was actually conducting business as 
claimed on the petition; 
• The record did not contain documentation that sufficiently explained why the Beneficiary's 
wages in an employment offer were less than the prevailing wage rate as specified on the labor 
condition application (LCA), or why they were different than the salary listed on the LCA; 
• Why the Beneficiary's pay varied from one year to the next within contractual material relating 
to the same client; 
• The Petitioner would receive $51,000 less from the client than it would pay out to the 
Beneficiary for his services for that same client; 
• The record did not reflect the type of work the Beneficiary would perform for the client; 
• The number of the Petitioner's personnel on the organization chart was inconsistent with the 
number of U.S. employees it listed on the petition; 
• Multiple information technology companies utilized the same or a very similar address as the 
Petitioner's address within the last year; and 
• I I was listed as the registered agent for more than one of those other entities but 
provided no evidence relating to which of those are related to the petitioning organization, nor 
did they identify which of those other entities, if any, that the Petitioner has utilized as a vendor 
or as a client in any H-lB petition filing. 
To reiterate, where a petitioner does not submit all requested additional evidence and requests a 
decision based on the evidence already submitted, a decision shall be issued based on the record. 
Failure to submit requested evidence, which precludes a material line of inquiry, shall be grounds for 
denying the benefit request. 10 In addition to the issues surrounding! Is signature, we will 
also dismiss the appeal based on the insufficiencies listed above that we discussed in greater detail 
within the RFE/NOID. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. 11 The Petitioner has not met that burden. The appeal will be dismissed for the above 
stated reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
11 Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
3