dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Q-4S- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 11,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development and IT consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "Senior System Architect" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has specialty occupation work available for 
the requested validity period. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner, however, did not submit new evidence or any 
statement addressing the Director's ground for denial of the petition. Although the Petitioner 
marked Box 1(b) in Part 3 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicating that a brief 
and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days, the record has not been supplemented 
with any additional submissions as of this date. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete 
as presently constituted. Further, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
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. 
The Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as 
a basis for the appeal. As noted, the Petitioner did not provide a brief or additional evidence in 
support of the appeal despite indicating on the Form I-290B that it intended do so. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not provide with its appeal a separate statement regarding the basis of the appeal, as 
instructed at Part 4 of the Form I-290B. A petitioner filing an appeal is required to provide a 
statement that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being 
Matter of Q-4S- Corp. 
appealed. Here, the Petitioner has made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in 
the Director's decision. 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). As the Petitioner has 
not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, 
the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter of Q-4S- Corp., ID# 16834 (AAO Mar. 11, 20 16) 
2