dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 0 4 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Imm igration Services 
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 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
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.P.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form 1-2908 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. 
Rosenberg 
... ""'""'''• Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form 1-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
software product development and consulting firm that was established in In order to employ 
the beneficiary, 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. The petitioner submitted a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and 
checked Box b in Part 3 of the form to indicate that it was filing an appeal and would send a brief 
and/or additional evidence within 30 days. 
We fully and in-detail reviewed the submission. However, the petitioner did not identify any 
specific assignment of error. Moreover, although the petitioner stated that it would send a brief 
and/or additional evidence, we have not received the submission within the allotted timeframe. 
Accordingly, the record of proceeding is deemed complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: "An officer to whom an appeal 
is taken shall summ arily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." In the instant case, the 
petitioner did not identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a 
basis for the appeal and, therefore, the appeal must be summ arily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.