dismissed H-1B

dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Software Development

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner failed to identify a specific, erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision. The Petitioner stated it would submit a brief or additional evidence but failed to do so.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Erroneous Conclusion Of Law Or Fact

View Full Decision Text

MATTER OF C-G- INC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 30, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a self-described "IT/software consulting and development" company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a software developer under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identifies an 
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. On the Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner stated that a brief or additional evidence would be submitted within 
30 days of the February 15, 2017, filing date. However, we have not received anything further from 
the Petitioner to date. Because the Petitioner has not identified a specific, erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact in the Director's decision below, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofC-G- Inc, ID# 487034 (AAO June 30, 2017)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.