dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

identifying data deletdtD 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 244 50918 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: dUN 1 2 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 l(a)(lS)(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 mher inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 244 509 18 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a software development business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a programmer 
analyst. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonirnmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The 'director denied the petition because the petitioner had not submitted contracts with computer companies 
that require the beneficiary's services, thereby demonstrating that an employer-employee relationship exists 
and the beneficiary is coming to the United States to perform a specialty occupation. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a brief and additional evidence, including a work orderlpurchase order from Tek Systems for the 
beneficiary's services. 
The work orderlpurchase order falls within the category of evidence that had been earlier requested by the 
director but not provided by the petitioner. The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional 
evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence 
is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as 
of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2@)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence 
that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2@)(14). 
On September 16,2004, the director sent a request to the petitioner for additional evidence and stated, in part: 
Additionally, submit copies of contractual agreements between the petitioner and the 
companies for which the beneficiary will be providing consulting services. Contracts should 
specify the contracted duties to be performed by the "consultant" while working for the client. 
Include copies of the statements of work, work orders and any other documents or appendices. 
Documentation should svecifi duties, dates of services requested. work schedule and Day 
schedule. (Emphasis in the original.) 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted 
the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the work orderlpurchase order that is submitted on appeal. 
The brief on appeal does not specify any legal or factual error in the director's decision. 
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. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
WAC 04 244 509 18 
Page 3 
On the Form I-290B, the petitioner fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact in denying the petition. As the petitioner does not present additional evidence on appeal to 
overcome the decision of the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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 dismissed.