dismissed H-1B Case: Software Consulting

(b)(6)
JUN f 6 2015 
DATE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
li.S. Uepartment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
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 1 0 l(a)( 15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110I(a)(15)(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. § 1 03.5. 
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 I-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, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, approved the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The Director thereafter revoked approval of the petition and the petitioner filed a motion to reopen. 
The motion was denied by the Director and the petitioner filed an appeal with the Administrative 
Appeals Office. The appeal will be dismissed. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
67-employee "Software Consulting" firm established in . In order to employ the beneficiary in 
what it designates as a "Sr. Informatica Consultant" 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)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
After the approval of the visa petition, a site visit was performed at the address listed on the petition 
as the location where the beneficiary would work; however, the site inspector discovered that the 
beneficiary was no longer working at that site .. Thereafter, the Director issued a Notice of Intent to 
Revoke (NOIR) the visa petition in which the Director notified the petitioner that she received 
evidence that suggested: (1) the beneficiary was no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the visa petition; (2) the statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and 
correct; (3) the petitioner had not established that the duties of the proffered position require a 
specialty occupation and that it has sufficient work for the requested period of intended employment; 
(4) the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the approved petition; and (5) the petitioner 
had violated H-lB requirements. 
The petitioner did not respond to the NOIR, and the Director revoked the approval of the visa 
petition. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen which the Director dismissed. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that the Director's bases for dismissal of the motion were erroneous and the 
revocation should be "withdrawn, reversed and nullified." 
On April 17, 2015, we issued a notice pertinent to the purported signatures of on various 
documents in the record. We observed that there were at least two distinctly different versions of 
ostensible signature. We requested that the petitioner provide specific evidence pertinent 
to that issue. A response to that notice was due on May 20, 2015. The petitioner did not respond 
within the time period allowed in the request, or 
any time since then. 
A petition may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both 
reasons if a petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or a notice of intent to 
deny 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 of the 
appeal. 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 )(14 ). 
As the petitioner has not responded to our notice, the appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will 
remain revoked due to the failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry, making any remaining issues in this proceeding moot. 
(b)(6)