dismissed H-1B Case: Software Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 3 0 2015 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(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. § 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 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 . 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the 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 
software consulting business established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it 
designates as a systems analyst position, the petitioner seeks to classify her 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, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable statutory and 
regulatory provisions. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Director's basis for denial of the 
petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
We sent a Request for Evidence (RFE) to the petitioner. The petitioner was afforded 33 days to 
respond to the request. The petitioner did not respond within the 33 day period allowed in the 
request, or any time since then. 
If a petitioner does not respond to a request for evidence by the required date, the benefit request 
may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both reasons. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i). As further provided in 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14), the failure to submit 
requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the benefit 
request. 
As the petitioner has not responded to our RFE, the benefit request is deniable under the regulatory 
provisions cited above. Accordingly, the 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The benefit request is summarily denied as abandoned and 
denied due to the failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line 
of inquiry.