dismissed H-1B Case: Software Consulting

identifying'" deletedto
preventclearlyunwarrllMd
invasionofpersonalprivaq
PUBLIC COpy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass . Ave ., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington , DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: EAC 06 025 52470 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 07 2007
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOI(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. § 11o1(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 06 025 52470
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is
now before the AAO. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.
The petitioner provides software-consulting services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a programmer
analyst. Accordingly the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant pursuant to
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b).
On July 18, 2006, the director denied the petition determining: that the beneficiary had been in H-l B status
since 1999; had already recaptured ten months of time spent outside the United States in that time period; had
not resided outside the United States for the requisite one year before applying for new H-I B employment;
and that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that the beneficiary is eligible for an extension based on the
"American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act," (AC-21) as amended by the "Twenty-First
Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act" (DOJ Authorization Act). The director
notified the petitioner it could appeal the decision within 30 days (33 days if the notice was received by mail).
On August 18, 2006, the Vermont Service Center received a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal, indicating that a
separate brief and/or evidence was being submitted with the Form 1-290B. In a statement appended to the
Form 1-290B, the petitioner stated that it accepted the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) decision
but requested reconsideration of the matter on humanitarian grounds.
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. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v).
The AAO, like the Board of Immigration Appeals, is without authority to apply humanitarian principles so as
to preclude a component part of CIS from undertaking a lawful course of action that it is empowered to
pursue by statute or regulation. See Matter of Hernandez-Puente, 20 I&N Dec. 335, 338 (BIA 1991). The
jurisdiction of the AAO is limited to those matters described at 8 C.F.R. § 103. 1(f)(3)(E)(iii) (as in effect on
February 28, 2003).
As the petitioner fails to specify how the director's decision included an erroneous conclusion of law or statement
of fact when denying the petition, but rather accepts the decision as correct, there is no argument or evidence on
appeal sufficient to overcome the decision of the director. Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed
in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(v).
The burden of proof in this proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361.
The petitioner has not sustained that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. The petition is denied