dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-V-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 14,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development firm, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as a systems analyst under the H -1 B 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 (1) that the 
proffered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation; and (2) that the Labor Condition 
Application does not correspond to the proffered position. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
We will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
I. APPEAL 
The Petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion and checked Box a in Part 3 of 
the form to indicate that it was filing an appeal and that a brief and/or additional evidence was 
attached. With the Form I-290B, the Petitioner (through counsel) submitted a letter dated November 
19, 2015. We fully and in-detail reviewed the submission, including the Form I-290B and the 
November 19, 2015, letter. However, the Petitioner did not identify any specific assignment of 
error. 
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." 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 summarily dismissed. 
II. CONCLUSION 
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 
Matter of 1-V-C-, Inc. 
(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 1-V-C-, Inc., ID# 17103 (AAO Mar. 14, 20 16) 
2