dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-T- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 1 L 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a software development and consulting tirm. seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "database administrator" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) ~ 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(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. Vennont Service Center. denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that it would have a valid employer-employee relationship with the 
Beneficiary such that the Petitioner could meet the definition of a United States employer as that 
term is defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. We will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An officer will summarily dismiss an appeal when the Petitioner does not identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)( I )(v) 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Petitioner marked Box 1(b) in Part 3 of the Form I-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion. to 
indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of tiling the 
appeal. However, \Ve did not receive a brief or additional evidence within the allotted timeframe. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide a separate statement regarding the basis of the appeaL as 
instructed at Part 4 ofthe Fonn I-290B. Accordingly, the record is considered complete as presently 
constituted. 
Upon review of the appeaL we conclude that the Petitioner has not specifically identified any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. Further. the Petitioner has 
made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in the Director's decision. 
Matter l?{Z-T- LLC 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1361: Matter (?fOtiende. 26 I&N Dec. 127. 128 (BIA 2013). Inasmuch as the 
Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this 
proceeding. the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(v). 
Cite as 1Hatter (?fZ-T- LLC. ID# 17806 (AAO May 11, 2016) 
2