dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4810489 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 4, 2020 
The Petitioner, software development and consulting firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily 
as a "computer systems engineer" 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 I-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 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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion,I 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 11, 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 vaf ances aJon~ with sworn statements and 
copies of government-issued identification documents from.__ ___ _,and any other individual who 
signed the forms and documents in the record. 
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 
1 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(a)(2). 
with legal standing in these proceedings. 2• 3 Responding to the NOID/RFE, the Petitioner explained 
that the signatures differed due to what may have been work fatigue. Notably J I's signature 
on both his affidavit and his driver's license submitted in response to our NOID/RFE do not appear 
consistent with the signatures on the Form 1-290B and Form G-28 submitted on appeal. 
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. 4 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. 5 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 thatl lwas 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 will be filed with USCIS on behalf of a corporation or other legal entity. 6 If 
the Petitioner does not establish that the Form 1-290B was 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. 7 Nor can we decide that the Petitioner properly filed this appeal, and 
we will dismiss this filing. 8 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. 9 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. 
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-lB petition was 
properly filed. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a). 
4 See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2014); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007). 
5 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). 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0134.1, Signatures on Paper Applications, Petitions, Requests, and Other 
Documents Filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 3 (Feb. 15, 2018), http://www.uscis.gov/legal­
resources/policy-memoranda. 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0134.1, supra, at 3. 
9 Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
2