dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1010L- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 1, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"QA Analyst - Test Lead" 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, California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the specialty 
occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon de novo review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner filed an appeal without a brief or evidence. 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, there is no evidence that the record has been 
supplemented with any additional submissions. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete 
as presently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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 
appealed. Here, the Petitioner has made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in 
Matter of JOJOL- Inc 
the director's decision. Therefore, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), the appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter of JOJOL- Inc, ID# 17170 (AAO Mar. 1, 2016) 
2